Magellan Federal, Inc. (W15QKN-24-R-0Z7W)

B-422890.2 Dec 17, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Magellan Federal, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Serco Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for a holistic health and fitness system in support of the Center for Initial Military Training, Army Training and Doctrine Command. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal, decision not to conduct discussions, and the source selection 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: Magellan Federal, Inc. File: B-422890.2 Date: December 17, 2024 W. Brad English, Esq., and Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s decision not to conduct discussions is denied where the solicitation provided that the agency intended to make award without discussions and no statute or regulation required the agency to conduct discussions. DECISION Magellan Federal, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Serco Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for a holistic health and fitness system in support of the Center for Initial Military Training, Army Training and Doctrine Command. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, decision not to conduct discussions, and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2024, the agency issued request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-24-R-0Z7W to all 17 holders of the Army’s Human Resource Solutions Personnel Life Cycle Support indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts using the procedures at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP Letter at 1.[1] As part of the holistic health and fitness system, the contractor would provide strength and conditioning coaches and cognitive performance specialists who would be integrated members of a brigade-based multi-disciplinary team focusing on optimizing soldier readiness and performance. AR, Tab 32, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order with cost-reimbursable line items for travel and other direct costs with a period of performance consisting of an 8-month base period (to include a 30-day transition period) and four 12-month option periods. AR, Tab 34, RFP attach. 5, Task Order Evaluation Plan (TOEP) at 2. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors: technical and cost/price. Id. The technical factor included evaluation of the following four areas: technical approach; staffing approach; management process; and transition plan. Id. at 4-6. The RFP also stated: “The four areas are not subfactors and will not be separately weighted.” Id. at 4. The RFP provided that the technical factor proposals would be evaluated to assess the offerors’ understanding of the requirements, completeness and adequacy of the response, and the feasibility of the approach, and assigned the following ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 9-11. The technical factor was more important than the cost/price factor, and award would be made based on the best-value proposal determined to be the most beneficial to the government. Id. at 2. The RFP further stated that “award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offer or to the Offeror with the highest technical rating.” Id. The agency received eight proposals including proposals from Magellan and Serco. COS/MOL at 11. In its final evaluation of Magellan’s proposal under the technical factor, the agency identified one significant strength, three strengths, and one significant weakness, and assigned a rating of good; Magellan’s cost/price was $270,616,047. AR, Tab 43, Task Order Decision Document at 6, 8-10. In comparison, Serco received a rating of outstanding under the technical factor, and its cost/price was $279,843,164. Id. at 6. On August 26, the agency notified Magellan that its proposal was not selected for award and provided a written debriefing. AR, Tab 44, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror Letter and Debriefing.