Inalab Consulting, Inc. (FOR-1670095)

B-422438,B-422438.2,B-422438.3 Jun 18, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Inalab Consulting, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to KYM Advisors, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Reston, Virginia, under fair opportunity request for proposals (RFP) No. 1670095, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command to provide declassification program support services. Inalab challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Inalab Consulting, Inc. File:B-422438; B-422438.2; B-422438.3 Date: June 18, 2024 Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Daniel Figuenick, III, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for KYM Advisors, Inc., the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical proposals is denied where, notwithstanding the parties’ disagreement regarding the assessment of one weakness in the protester’s proposal, the protester fails to demonstrate prejudice. 2. Protest of the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the selection of the higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Inalab Consulting, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to KYM Advisors, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Reston, Virginia, under fair opportunity request for proposals (RFP) No. 1670095, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command to provide declassification program support services.[1] Inalab challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ technical proposals and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2023, the Army issued the RFP pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of FAR subpart 16.5 to holders of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) multiple award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3. The RFP, which the agency amended four times, sought a contractor to provide declassification program support services to the Army declassification directorate. Id.; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 4. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single task order with a 12‑month base period, four 12-month option periods, and fixed-price and cost- reimbursable contract line items. RFP at 4-5. The RFP established that the task order would be issued to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the Army, considering three evaluation factors: (1) security requirements (to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis); (2) technical capability and management approach; and (3) price. AR, Tab 7, RFP attach. 3 at 14. The RFP provided that the agency would make award using a best-value tradeoff, with the technical capability and management approach factor being significantly more important than price. Id. at 15‑16. The technical capability and management approach factor consisted of four equally weighted key areas: (1) declassification support and records processing and handling; (2) staffing plan/retention and key personnel; (3) quality control plan (QCP) and monthly reports; and (4) project management and transition plans. RFP attach. 3 at 15-16. Each of the key areas included several specific criteria that would be evaluated. Id. at 18‑21. For example, for the QCP and monthly reports key area, the agency would evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed QCP provided a comprehensive, verifiable, and self-implementing approach for monitoring performance. Id. at 20. The RFP provided that the Army would assign an overall adjectival rating for the technical capability and management approach factor based on the strengths and weaknesses found in each of the key areas. RFP attach. 3 at 16. As relevant here, the RFP defined a rating of outstanding as “Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirement, contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low” and a rating of good as “Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.” [2] Id. at 17. The agency received five proposals, including those submitted by Inalab and KYM.