FedWriters, Inc. (1305M422RNEEA0001)

B-421546.3,B-421546.5 Jun 30, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FedWriters, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the evaluation of its proposal by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M4-22-RNEEA-0001, to provide "a wide assortment of professional, technical and scientific services." See Combined Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1. FedWriters challenges the agency's assessment of a "low confidence" rating under the most important evaluation factor, relevant technical experience. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: FedWriters, Inc. File: B-421546.3; B-421546.5 Date: June 30, 2023 Claudia Savena, Esq., FedWriters, Inc., and Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, for the protester. Ryan Lambrecht, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal under the solicitation’s most important evaluation factor, technical experience, is denied where the agency reasonably assessed a rating of “low confidence” to protester’s proposal. DECISION FedWriters, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the evaluation of its proposal by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M4-22-RNEEA-0001, to provide “a wide assortment of professional, technical and scientific services.” See Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.[1] FedWriters challenges the agency’s assessment of a “low confidence” rating under the most important evaluation factor, relevant technical experience. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 2, 2021, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set‑aside. The solicitation sought proposals to provide a broad range of professional, technical and scientific services in the “Satellite Domain,”[2] and stated that the agency intended to award between 10 and 25 IDIQ contracts under which task orders will subsequently be issued.[3] RFP at 112.[4] The services identified in the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS) were divided into various “service areas,”[5] and each service area identified specific “elements” that may be required under subsequent task orders.[6] The solicitation further provided that source selection decisions would be made on the basis of “Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price,” and provided that, in identifying the highest technically rated proposals, the agency would consider the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: relevant technical experience,[7] management approach, and past performance. Id. The solicitation also provided that the procurement would be conducted in two phases, stating that phase one would consist of each offeror’s “self-assessment” of its recent relevant experience. Id. at 101. More specifically, the solicitation required each offeror to submit a matrix (RFP attachment J-4) in which the offeror characterized its experience in performing each of the service areas’ 190 elements as “extensive,” “some,” or “no” relevant experience. Id. at 114-15. The solicitation warned offerors that, as discussed below, experience claimed in phase one would have to be substantiated during phase two and, accordingly, advised offerors that they “should review and consider” the phase two requirements before submitting their phase one self-assessment proposals. Id. at 101. More specifically, the solicitation advised that: “[o]fferors should only claim experience for those elements where they can clearly substantiate (in Phase 2) the level of the experience they are claiming.” AR, Tab 4b, RFP attach. J-4, Technical Experience Matrix,Tab 1. The solicitation provided that, following the phase one submissions, the agency would make advisory recommendations to offerors regarding whether they should proceed to phase two. In phase two, offerors were required to submit additional information substantiating the experience claimed in phase one.[8] With regard to the technical experience evaluation factor, each offeror was required to identify up to 20 prior contracts under which it had gained the experience the offeror was claiming;[9] map the prior contracts to the relevant performance elements;[10] and submit a written narrative[11] in which the offeror “shall describe its depth of experience.”[12] RFP at 103.