VMD Systems Integrators, Inc- dba VMD Corporation (12314422R0016)

B-421197 Dec 12, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., doing business as VMD Corp, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to At-Impact, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 12314422R0016, which was issued by the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), for information technology support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation, best-value tradeoff, and resulting award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: VMD Systems Integrators, Inc. File: B-421197 Date: December 12, 2022 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Richard J. Webber, Esq., Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., and Patrice Z. Howard, Esq., ArentFox Schiff LLP, for At-Impact, LLC, the intervenor. Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the solicitation’s prior experience and technical approach factors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s comparative analysis and source selection decision is denied where the agency’s best‑value tradeoff and source selection decision were reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., doing business as VMD Corp, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to At‑Impact, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 12314422R0016, which was issued by the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), for information technology support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation, best‑value tradeoff, and resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the TORFP on June 27, 2022, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding CIO-SP3‑SB-8(a) multiple‑award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for information technology (IT) services, utilizing the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center’s (NITAAC) Electronic Government Ordering System (e-GOS). Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The TORFP sought proposals for IT services supporting the entirety of the operational environments, delivery platforms, pipelines, second tier support, and modernization, enhancements, and maintenance of cloud and application automation pipelines for the NRCS, whose IT operations support is administered by the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, TORFP at 2‑3.[1] The TORFP contemplated the award of a single, fixed‑price task order with a 4‑month base period and four 1‑year option periods using a best‑value tradeoff methodology considering three non-price factors and price. Id. at 16, 28, 32. The TORFP set forth the three non‑price factors in descending order of importance: prior experience; technical approach; and oral presentation. Id. at 29. The TORFP further provided that the non‑price factors were more important than price. Id. at 32. Initially, offerors were to submit proposals only with respect to the prior experience factor. Id. at 29. The agency would evaluate those submissions and advise offerors whose proposals were not among the most highly rated that they were unlikely to be viable competitors. Id. at 31. Those offerors then could elect whether to continue participating in the procurement. Id. Offerors electing to continue were to submit proposals for the remaining factors, followed by oral presentations. Id. at 29. Under the prior experience factor, offerors were to submit information detailing up to four projects addressing their experience managing a hybrid database operations environment (i.e., where data is stored both on premises and in the cloud), operating within a multi‑vendor, multi‑organizational environment, and migrating a legacy system to the cloud. Id. at 30. Under the technical approach factor, offerors were to submit a performance work statement (PWS) and quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) demonstrating how they would meet the TORFP’s statement of objectives.[2] Id. at 31.