Zantech IT Services, Inc. (W519TC-23-R-0070)

B-422452,B-422452.2,B-422452.3 Jun 26, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zantech IT Services, Inc., a small business of Tysons Corner, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Management Solutions, LLC, a small business of Vienna, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) W519TC-23-R-0070 under the Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS), Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command for technical and program support services for the Defense Integrated Business Systems (DIBS) portfolio. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals in various ways. 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: Zantech IT Services, Inc. File: B-422452; B-422452.2; B-422452.3 Date: June 26, 2024 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Owen E. Salyers, Esq., and Timothy J. Whittle, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Credence Management Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Alex M. Cahill, Esq., John Degnan, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was generally reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and, to the extent there were any errors, such errors did not competitively prejudice the protester. 2. Protest that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion in evaluating corporate experience by considering the dollar value of corporate experience efforts is denied where the solicitation specifically required offerors to furnish the dollar value of each corporate experience effort and explained that the agency would evaluate examples for similarity to the current effort. DECISION Zantech IT Services, Inc., a small business of Tysons Corner, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Management Solutions, LLC, a small business of Vienna, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) W519TC-23-R-0070 under the Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS), Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command for technical and program support services for the Defense Integrated Business Systems (DIBS) portfolio.[1] The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals in various ways. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on April 27, 2023, to all small business holders of the CHESS ITES3S IDIQ suite of contracts. MOL at 2. The underlying requirement consolidated the requirements of three existing contracts as well as adding some new tasks. Id. at 88-89. The protester is the incumbent prime contractor on one of the three consolidated requirements, and a major subcontractor on a second of the consolidated contracts. Protest at 12. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single task order with fixed-price, labor-hour, and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers, and a 6-month base period with four 1-year options. MOL at 2-3. The RFP identified four evaluation factors: (1) security clearance requirement; (2) technical understanding/risks; (3) corporate experience; and (4) cost/price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 43, Conformed RFP at 26.[2] Factor 2 was divided into two subfactors: (1) technical capabilities and (2) management approach. Id. The solicitation explained that the security clearance requirement would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and then award would be made through a tradeoff among the other three factors. Id. at 26-27. The technical understanding/risks factor was the most important factor followed by the corporate experience factor, and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. Additionally, the solicitation explained that, within the technical understanding/risks factor, the management approach subfactor was more important than the technical capabilities subfactor.