Attesa Group, LLC (95332424R0003)

B-423096 Jan 16, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Attesa Group LLC, an 8(a) small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Nakupuna Services LLC, an 8(a) small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95332424R0003, which was issued by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), for acquisition support for the agency's Contracts and Grants Management Division. The protester challenges the evaluation of the protester's proposal, and the resulting award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision       Decision Matter of: Attesa Group, LLC File: B-423096 Date: January 16, 2025 Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., Reston Law Group LLP, for the protester. Franklin C. Turner, Esq., Alexander W. Major, Esq., Michael A. Richard, Esq., and Philip Lee, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for Nakupuna Services LLC, the intervenor. Cheryl Mpande, Esq., Millennium Challenge Corporation, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Michael Willems, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation was generally reasonable, adequately documented, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, and, to the extent any errors were made, such errors were not competitively prejudicial to the protester. DECISION Attesa Group LLC, an 8(a) small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Nakupuna Services LLC, an 8(a) small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95332424R0003, which was issued by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), for acquisition support for the agency’s Contracts and Grants Management Division.[1] The protester challenges the evaluation of the protester’s proposal, and the resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 authorizes MCC to award personal services contracts as defined by FAR sections 2.101 and 37.104, and as necessary to meet the agency’s mission. 22 U.S.C. § 7713(a)(8); Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP amend. 1 at 82.[2] The RFP, which was issued on May 29, 2024, and subsequently amended once, sought proposals for the establishment of an indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery (IDIQ) contract for the provision of personal services to provide federal acquisition and assistance support services to supplement the federal staff of MCC’s Contracts and Grants Management Division. RFP amend. 1 at 79, 82. The RFP anticipated the establishment of a single IDIQ contract with a single base year and four, 1-year options. Id. at 79. The RFP also contemplated that orders would be issued on a time-and-materials basis up to a total ceiling of $33 million. Id.; AR, Tab 22, Business Clearance Memorandum at 408. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) corporate capabilities; and (3) price. RFP amend. 1 at 107. The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. Additionally, the technical approach factor included four subfactors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (a) recruitment and staffing capabilities; (b) retention of staff; (c) resumes, professional reference, and commitment letters; and (d) past performance. Id. Only the recruitment and staffing capabilities and retention of staff subfactors are relevant to the issues presented in the protest. Under the recruitment and staffing capabilities subfactor, offerors were to be evaluated based on their respective demonstrated ability to rapidly recruit and staff existing vacancies, including finding potential candidates and adequately pre-screening candidates for technical, computer, and interpersonal skills. Id. Under the retention of staff subfactor, offerors were to be evaluated based on their respective demonstrated abilities to retain both the existing incumbent personnel and new personnel recruited to the contract, including: (a) incumbent staff engagement and retention strategy; (b) a detailed breakdown of competitive benefits and salary (including all fringe benefits offered to personnel, such as insurance policies, paid-time-off policies, and other compensation elements); (c) internal retention strategies and incentive plans; and (d) engagement with on-site personnel and agency management to proactively address and minimize potential sources of turnover. Id. at 108. The RFP contemplated that the agency would conduct the procurement in three phases. In the first phase, the agency evaluated corporate capabilities, and the agency received 62 phase I proposals, including from Attessa and Nakupuna.[3] AR, Tab 22, Business Clearance Memorandum at 415-16.