Grove Street Investment, LLC (86615622R00004)

B-421489 Jun 07, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Grove Street Investment, LLC, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to NuvoLogic Consulting, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 86615622R00004. The solicitation was issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for loan underwriting and closing services in support of the agency's administration of its mortgage insurance program. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Grove Street's proposal under the technical approach and past performance factors. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Grove Street Investment, LLC File: B-421489 Date: June 7, 2023 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman Attorneys-at-Law, for the protester. Julie K. Cannatti, Esq., Justin D. Haselden, Esq., and Jonathan I. Pomerance, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest asserting that agency was required to seek clarification of an error in protester’s proposal, caused by an alleged latent solicitation ambiguity, is denied where the solicitation was not ambiguous and the agency was under no obligation to seek clarification of the inaccurate information submitted by the protester. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the protester failed to submit the past performance narrative required by the solicitation to demonstrate relevancy. DECISION Grove Street Investment, LLC, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to NuvoLogic Consulting, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 86615622R00004. The solicitation was issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for loan underwriting and closing services in support of the agency’s administration of its mortgage insurance program. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Grove Street’s proposal under the technical approach and past performance factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on July 13, 2022, for project management, loan insurance underwriting, loan closing, and loan monitoring and administration in support of HUD’s Office of Healthcare Programs, which administers a mortgage insurance program pursuant to section 232 of the National Housing Act. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 9; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; see 12 U.S.C. § 1715(b). The RFP contemplated award of a hybrid contract with fixed-price and fixed-unit-rate line item numbers (LIN) for a 1‑year base period and four 1-year options using a competitive 8(a) small business approach under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, part 12, and subpart 19.8.[1] RFP at 9. The RFP advised that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was the most advantageous to the government considering four factors: technical approach, management plan, past performance, and price. Id. at 38. Non-price factors were of equal importance, and all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 40. Offerors were instructed to submit their proposals in two parts. Id. at 33. Part I, the technical proposal, was to contain three volumes: volume I, technical approach; volume II, management plan; and volume III, past performance. Id. at 33; AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1 at 5.[2] Part II, the business proposal, was to be comprised of the price rate schedule, price breakdown worksheet, and other required information. RFP at 33. The RFP informed offerors that “[e]ach [p]art of the [p]roposal must be completed in itself so that evaluation of each part may be conducted independently and strictly on its own merit,” and noted that “[i]nformation not found in the correct [p]roposal [p]art and [v]olume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal and not evaluated.” Id. As part of their technical approach volumes, offerors were to provide a labor mix and level of effort matrix containing the labor categories and number of hours being proposed for each labor category. AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1 at 5. The solicitation instructed offerors to use the RFP-provided attachment 0004, “Sample Labor Category/Hours Breakdown Worksheet without Rates,” to provide the information. Id.