LPE Strategy, LLC (75F40123R00015)

B-421723.2,B-421723.3 Oct 16, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LPE Strategy, LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to MPZA, LLC, of Gaithersburg, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 75F40123R00015, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for data management services. Protest at 1-3. LPE challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the RFP's non-price evaluation factors, and asserts that the source selection decision was unreasonable. 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: LPE Strategy, LLC File: B-421723.2; B-421723.3 Date: October 16, 2023 Sonia Tabriz, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Julia Swafford, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for MPZA, LLC, the intervenor. Eno-Obong J. Essien, Esq., Martin McEnrue, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, 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 Agency reasonably evaluated protester’s and awardee’s proposals pursuant to the terms of the solicitation, and reasonably determined that payment of the price premium associated with protester’s proposal was not warranted by the slight superiority of its proposed technical approach. DECISION LPE Strategy, LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to MPZA, LLC, of Gaithersburg, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 75F40123R00015, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for data management services. Protest at 1-3.[1] LPE challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the RFP’s non-price evaluation factors, and asserts that the source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 4, 2023, the agency issued RFP No. 75F40123R00015, seeking proposals to provide data management services, including the entering and coding of adverse event reports in the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).[2] The agency states that the requirements of this contract are critical to ensuring that relevant data can be reviewed by the FDA safety evaluation team to identify safety issues and respond to public health incidents. AR, Tab 6.4, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2. The solicitation was issued as an 8(a) small business set-aside[3] for mentor-protégé joint ventures and contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract. Offerors were advised that the source selection decision would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: demonstrated prior experience, technical approach,[4] past performance, and price.[5] RFP amend. 1 at 74, 108-11. Consistent with a best-value tradeoff, the solicitation reminded offerors that the “the government may or may not award to the lowest priced Offeror.” Id. at 108. Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation provided that, in demonstrating prior experience, each offeror must submit “three (3) relevant recent examples of demonstrated prior experience,” elaborating that “[r]ecent is defined as within the last five (5) years,” and “relevant is defined as being of a similar scope and complexity” to the requirements of this solicitation.[6] Id. at 100. The solicitation further provided that at least one of the prior experience examples “shall come from the Offeror who will be the prime contractor for this requirement.” Id. In response to an offeror’s question, the solicitation elaborated that, if the offeror is a joint venture (JV), the required experience “can be from either of the members of the JV,” adding that offerors “may use prior experiences in which they serve[d] as a prime, subcontractor, and other team organizations.” AR, Tab 2.3a, RFP Responses to Questions at 4. On or before the January 25, 2023 due date, the agency received phase I proposals from nine offerors, including LPE and MPZA;[7] thereafter, LPE and MPZA were invited to submit phase II proposals. In its proposal, MPZA stated that it was a mentor-protégé joint venture between MPF Federal, LLC (the protégé) and Zimmerman Associates, Inc. (the mentor--and also the mentor member of the prior joint venture that had performed the predecessor contract). MPZA’s proposal further stated that its team included BarnAllen Technologies, Inc.