Insight Technology Solutions, LLC (70Z02323R45900001)

B-421764.6,B-421764.7 Mar 27, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Insight Technology Solutions, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to THOR Solutions, LLC (THOR), of Arlington, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 70Z02323R45900001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), for contractor support services. Insight asserts that USCG's evaluation of its proposal and THOR's proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: Insight Technology Solutions, LLC File: B-421764.6; B-421764.7 Date: March 27, 2024 Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., and Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Stephen P. Ramaley, Esq., Roger V. Abbott, Esq., and Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for THOR Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to credit protester’s corporate experience reference with American Bureau of Shipping experience is dismissed where the protester first raised this protest ground more than 10 days after it knew or should have known the basis for protest. DECISION Insight Technology Solutions, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to THOR Solutions, LLC (THOR), of Arlington, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 70Z02323R45900001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), for contractor support services. Insight asserts that USCG’s evaluation of its proposal and THOR’s proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND This task order competition was conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. The TORFP was issued to holders of the General Services Administration, One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to obtain contractor support services for the Ship Design and Systems Engineering Division, Human Systems Integration Division, and Surface Forces Logistics Center Engineering Services Division. Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1, TORFP Conformed at 2. Services would include “complete life cycle management of surface assets from concept development through disposal” and “studying, analyzing, and evaluating engineering problems, and developing solutions.” Id. The TORFP anticipated issuance of a fixed-priced task order with a 12-month base period, a 1-year option period, and an optional 6-month extension period under FAR clause 52.217-8. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3. The initial due date for proposals was April 3, 2023. Id. The solicitation contemplated issuance of the task order to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering three factors: corporate experience, management approach, and price. TORFP at 8, 41-42. The corporate experience factor was more important than the management approach factor. Those two factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor. Id. at 42. Under the corporate experience factor, proposals were required to provide at least one--but no more than four--references that described “experience performing requirements similar in scope and complexity to those in the solicitation.” Id. at 38. The TORFP provided that, “to be considered similar in scope and complexity, at a minimum, the contract reference should show similar technical difficulty, show relevant requirements, and show the company’s experience providing specialized engineering capabilities similar to the requirements of this solicitation.” Id. The TORFP “encouraged” offerors “to identify relevant experiences with a large number of specialized engineers and experience performing the highly technical naval/marine engineering tasks identified in the solicitation.” Id. The solicitation provided that the government would consider recency, relevance, and length of experience in its evaluation of offeror experience; references would not be considered recent if they began before February 2016. Id. at 41-42.