FedWriters, Inc. (75F40123R00069)

B-421906.7,B-421906.8 Sep 17, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FedWriters, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and issuance of an initial task order to Kaiva Strategies, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75F40123R00069, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for professional, administrative, and consulting services (PACS). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which resulted in an improper best-value tradeoff decision. 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: FedWriters, Inc. File: B-421906.7; B-421906.8 Date: September 17, 2024 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. Damon A. Brown, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, 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 challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff is denied where the best-value tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION FedWriters, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract and issuance of an initial task order to Kaiva Strategies, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75F40123R00069, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for professional, administrative, and consulting services (PACS). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which resulted in an improper best‑value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 23, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 as a set‑aside for 8(a) small businesses.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2b, RFP amend. 0001 at 3.[2] The solicitation contemplated both the award of an IDIQ contract in support of the FDA’s PACS requirements, and the issuance of an initial task order under that contract to provide digital communications support to FDA’s Office of External Affairs. AR, Tab 2e, RFP, attach. B, IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW) at 1; AR, Tab 2i, RFP, attach. D, Task Order SOW at 3. To that end, the solicitation included both an IDIQ SOW and a task order SOW. AR, Tab 2e, RFP, attach. B, IDIQ SOW; AR, Tab 2i, RFP, attach. D, Task Order SOW. The period of performance for the IDIQ contract is five years, consisting of five 12‑month ordering periods and one 6‑month ordering period. AR, Tab 2e, RFP, attach. B, IDIQ SOW at 9. The period of performance for the task order is also five years, consisting of a 1-year base period, followed by four 1-year option periods. AR, Tab 2i, RFP, attach D, Task Order SOW at 11. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals in two phases; the due date for phase one proposals, as amended, was May 12, 2023. RFP amend. 0001 at 1. The two-phase evaluation scheme was based on the following evaluation factors: demonstrated prior experience, key personnel, task order management approach, relevant past performance, and labor categories and pricing worksheet. AR, Tab 2g, Instructions and Evaluation Criteria amend. 0001 at 3‑6. For phase one, the agency would evaluate the demonstrated prior experience factor. Under phase two, the agency would evaluate the remaining factors. The solicitation provided that the agency would award the contract on a best‑value tradeoff basis where the non-price evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance and the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. at 10. For the agency’s evaluation of the demonstrated prior experience factor under phase one, offerors were to describe their prior experience managing similar IDIQ contracts or blanket purchase agreements, complying with limitations on subcontracting, identifying highly qualified staff, and responding quickly to task order requirements. Id. at 4. The agency would evaluate this factor by assessing its level of confidence that the offeror would successfully perform all requirements. Id. Following phase one of the evaluation, the agency would issue an advisory notification that advised offerors as to whether they should submit a proposal for the phase two evaluation. Id. at 4­‑5. Under phase two, the agency would evaluate the remaining factors. Id. at 7‑9.