Paradyme Management, Inc. (70SBUR22R00000003)

B-421203,B-421203.2 Jan 18, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Paradyme Management, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Ekagra Partners, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR22R00000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for full system lifecycle support services for the USCIS enterprise gateway and integration services (EGIS) system. Paradyme challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection 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: Paradyme Management, Inc. File: B-421203; B-421203.2 Date: January 18, 2023 Christian B. Nagel, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Sean Belanger, Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for Ekagra Partners, LLC, the intervenor. Beth Sturgess, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the solicitation’s staffing and price factors is denied, where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation 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 Paradyme Management, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Ekagra Partners, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR22R00000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for full system lifecycle support services for the USCIS enterprise gateway and integration services (EGIS) system. Paradyme challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation to firms holding contracts under the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) chief information officer-solutions and partners 3 small business (CIO-SP3 SB) governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC), pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a task order for a 4-month base period and four 1-year option periods, to provide program management, and development, security, and operations services in support of the agency’s EGIS system. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7a, RFP at 2, 48; AR, Tab 4a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.[1] The RFP provided for a multi-phase procurement. In phase I, offerors were to submit written proposals containing relevant business information, required representations, and a statement that the offeror agreed to all the terms and conditions in the solicitation. RFP at 62‑66. Also in phase I, offerors were required to give an oral presentation responding to five questions included in the solicitation by the agency. Id.; AR, Tab 4k, RFP attach. 7, Oral Presentation Questions. The agency was to evaluate the oral presentations, including the corresponding slides, before conducting an advisory “down-select.” RFP at 61. The RFP stated that the advisory down-select was only a recommendation and offerors that were advised not to proceed could elect to continue to phase II. Id. For phase II, offerors were to participate in a coding challenge and submit a price proposal. Id. at 67‑71. The coding challenge was to consist of each offeror creating a solution to a problem statement provided by the agency, then conducting a live demonstration of their solution by deploying the created code. Id. at 68‑69. The solicitation provided that if the agency did not have sufficient information to make a best-value determination after the conclusion of phase II, the agency would move to phase III, which would consist of another coding challenge simulating a change request. Id. at 71. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following non-price factors in descending order of importance: (1) oral presentation; (2) coding challenge; and (3) staffing and team composition. Id. at 71‑72. For the purpose of performing the best-value tradeoff, the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.