B. French Consulting GmbH (HQ084722R0001)

B-421515 May 09, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights B. French Consulting GmbH (B. French), of Sinsheim, Germany, protests its exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ084722R0001, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, for information technology/information management (IT/IM) support services. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: B. French Consulting GmbH File: B-421515 Date: May 9, 2023 Ronald E. Pacheco for the protester. Adam K. Lasky, Esq., and Stephanie Magnell, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Vectrus Systems Corporation, the intervenor. Wayne Branom, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION B. French Consulting GmbH (B. French), of Sinsheim, Germany, protests its exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ084722R0001, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, for information technology/information management (IT/IM) support services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation sought a contractor to provide IT/IM support services to the George C. Marshall Center for European Studies.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. PWS at 2-3. The solicitation required proposals to be submitted in the following four volumes: (1) administrative; (2) pass/fail labor certifications; (3) technical approach and capability; (4) past performance; and price. Req. for Dismissal, exh. C, RFP at 80. As relevant here, for the pass/fail labor certifications volume, offerors were to submit a completed template provided in attachment 6 to the RFP, “labor requirements and qualifications,” with the names, certifications, and experience levels for each labor category listed in the PWS, along with copies of all certifications. Id. at 83. The solicitation required offerors to propose personnel who met the certification requirements in DOD Manual 8570.01-M for the category and level functions in which the personnel would perform.[2] PWS at 12. Contractor personnel were required to obtain the specified DOD-approved baseline certifications prior to being engaged. Id. Attachment 6 to the RFP specified the certifications and qualifications for each position. For example, personnel proposed to provide tier one help desk support services were required to hold an Information Assurance Technician (IAT) level II security+ certification and have at least 2 years of help desk experience.[3] Req. for Dismissal, exh. F, RFP attach. 6 at 1. The solicitation explained the evaluation of the completed labor requirements and qualifications template as follows: The Government will evaluate a proposal ONLY IF the offer/proposal satisfies all of the following element, which will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis*: (1) The Offeror submits a completed Attachment 6 – Labor Requirements and Qualifications along with copies of all certifications required for each labor category listed in the PWS. If the Government determines that an Offeror does not meet the certification requirements criteria listed by the proposal due date, the Offeror shall receive a “fail” and no further evaluation of pass/fail criteria number four will be performed. The Offeror will not be considered for award. *Offerors will only be eligible for award after an evaluation is conducted in accordance with the aforementioned criteria. If the Offeror receives a “fail” for the element listed above, the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated further. RFP at 85. The solicitation provided that award would be made using a best-value tradeoff that would consider the following factors: technical approach and capability; past performance; and price. Id. The non-price factors were of equal importance, and when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency received five proposals, including the protester’s, before the deadline for submission. Req. for Dismissal, exh. A, Unsuccessful Offeror Notification at 1. The agency reviewed B. French’s completed labor requirements and qualifications template and determined that the protester’s proposal did not satisfy the pass/fail criteria. Req. for Dismissal at 1; see also Req. for Dismissal, exh. A, Unsuccessful Offeror Notification at 1-2. The agency found that although the protester proposed a sufficient number of personnel to provide tier one help desk support, one of the individuals that B. French proposed lacked the required IAT level II security+ certification. Id. at 2.