New Generation Solution, LLC (PANMRA-21-P-0000-005511)

B-421273 Feb 08, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to NexTech LinTech, LLC, a small business of Southfield, Michigan, by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. PANMRA-21-P-0000-005511 for information technology (IT) support services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal and challenges the Army's best-value tradeoff 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: New Generation Solution, LLC File: B-421273 Date: February 8, 2023 Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and Sanford E. Watson, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for NexTech LinTech, LLC, the intervenor. Major Heather M. Martin, Dana J. Chase, Esq., Andrew Smith, Esq., and Major Bruce Mayeaux, Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical evaluation factor and management/staffing factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging an agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s source selection rationale was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to NexTech LinTech, LLC, a small business of Southfield, Michigan, by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. PANMRA‑21‑P‑0000-005511 for information technology (IT) support services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal and challenges the Army’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on May 10, 2022, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, under the General Services Administration’s 8(a) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resources for Services (STARS) III governmentwide acquisition contract,[1] seeking information management and IT services in support of the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, RFP amend. 4 (RFP) at 1.[3] The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and the option to extend services pursuant to FAR clause 52.217-8 for an additional six months. Id. at 2. The RFP announced that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and non-price factors, with the non-price factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, management/staffing, and past performance. RFP at 11. When combined, the non-price factors would be significantly more important than price. Id. at 12. The RFP provided for the assessment of significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in the offerors’ proposals during the best-value tradeoff. Id. at 16-17. The solicitation advised that the process of rating the first two non-price factors would involve two steps. First, evaluators would rate each factor individually, with the technical and management/staffing factors receiving ratings of either outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. RFP at 11, 15. Second, evaluators would assign a collective rating to these non-price factors, using the previously mentioned adjectival ratings. Id. at 11. The solicitation cautioned that only proposals with an overall rating of “acceptable” or higher would be considered for award. Id. at 12. The RFP stated that the past performance factor would be evaluated independently from the other non-price factors, would be assessed for relevancy, and would receive a confidence rating.[4] Id. at 14-16. Under both the technical factor and management/staffing factor, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated “to determine the degree to which the [o]fferor’s methodologies, processes, and capabilities reflect an ability to effectively execute the [solicitation] requirements” in eight different areas.[5] RFP at 12.