Chevo Consulting, LLC (70FA6023Q00000004)

B-422342.2 Aug 30, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chevo Consulting, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to J&M Global Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 70FA6023Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for program management services. Chevo argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated Chevo's proposal under multiple evaluation factors. 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: Chevo Consulting, LLC File: B-422342.2 Date: August 30, 2024 Matthew Schoonover, Esq., Matthew Moriarty, Esq., Timothy Laughlin, Esq., and Ian Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Kenneth Brody, Esq., and Thomnas K. David, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for J&M Global Solutions LLC, the intervenor. Matthew Lane, Esq., and Patrick J. Madigan, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's technical proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Chevo Consulting, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to J&M Global Solutions, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 70FA6023Q00000004, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for program management services. Chevo argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated Chevo's proposal under multiple evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND FEMA issued the TORP on April 27, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, to vendors holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under the General Services Administration's One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Small Business Pool 1[1].  Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1.1, TORP at 1, 2.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a task order for a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods to provide program management support services on behalf of FEMA's Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. Id. at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: corporate experience[2]; proposed performance work statement and quality assurance surveillance plan (PWS and QASP); oral presentation-technical approach; staffing plan and key personnel; past performance; and price. Id. at 87. The technical factors were listed in descending order of importance and all non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency assigned the non-price factors a confidence rating of high, some, or low, based on assessed areas of the proposal that increased or decreased the agency's confidence in the offerors ability to successfully perform the task order.[3] TORP at 90-91. The agency evaluated proposals in two phases. TORP at 76. During phase 1, the agency evaluated technical proposals under the corporate experience factor. Id. at 76. Following the phase 1 evaluation, the agency notified offerors whether the agency considered them to be the most highly rated and viable competitors for award.[4] During phase 2, five offerors submitted proposals, including Chevo and J&M. The agency evaluated phase 2 proposals under the PWS and QASP, oral presentation, staffing plan/key personnel, past performance, and price factors. Id. The proposals of Chevo and J&M were rated as follows: Offeror Corporate Experience PWS and QASP Oral Presentation Staffing Plan/Key Personnel Past Performance Price J&M High Some High High Some $92,396,264 Chevo Some Some Low Low Some $73,140,083 AR, Tab C.3, Corrective Action Award (CAA) Memo at 1. The agency conducted a best-value tradeoff and selected J&M for award. This protest followed.[5] DISCUSSION For each evaluation factor, with the exception of the oral presentation factor, Chevo challenges the agency's findings that various aspects of Chevro's proposal decreased the agency's confidence in Chevo's ability to successfully perform the contract. We have reviewed all Chevo's allegations and find no basis to sustain the protest. We discuss several examples below.[6] The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. An offeror's disagreement with an agency's judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.