IntelliDyne, LLC

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: IntelliDyne, LLC

File: B-409107; B-409107.2; B-409107.3

Date: January 16, 2014

DIGEST

Protest that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

IntelliDyne, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a delivery order to DHA Group, Inc., of Washington, D.C., by the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service (USMS), under solicitation No. DJM-13-A41-R-0044, for information technology development and sustainment services. IntelliDyne argues that USMS’ evaluation of its proposal was not in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation, issued on July 3, 2013, sought proposals from vendors holding Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts under Schedule No. 70, to provide agile information technology development and sustainment services to the USMS. Solicitation, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at § 1.0. The solicitation contemplated use of an agile approach[1] for the design, development and sustainment of new and existing capabilities within the framework of systems described in the PWS.[2] PWS at §1.3.

The solicitation contemplated award based on a best-value tradeoff, price and non-price factors considered. Solicitation, Evaluation – Commercial Items, at 1. The non-price factors were technical approach, key personnel qualifications, and past performance. Id. When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. The solicitation informed offerors that the best-value tradeoff determination would entail an assessment by the agency of whether differences in the technical merit between proposals outweighed differences in the price. Id. However, offerors were cautioned that the agency would not make an award at a significantly higher cost to gain slightly superior technical features. Id.

Eight proposals were received by the proposal due date, including proposals from IntelliDyne and DHA. AR, Exh. 10, Award Decision, at 1. The relevant results of the technical evaluation were as follows:

Id. at 8-10. The agency conducted a tradeoff analysis between IntelliDyne and DHA, the two highest-rated offerors. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that neither technical proposal was markedly better than the other, and that DHA’s proposal provided the best overall value based on its submitted lower price. Id. at 12. Notice of the award decision was sent to IntelliDyne on October 3. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

IntelliDyne argues that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was not in accord with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. Protester’s Comments at 1. IntelliDyne asserts that the agency improperly evaluated background and security requirements under the key personnel qualifications factor instead of under the technical approach factor, resulting in an improperly low rating for its proposal under the technical approach factor. Id. at 3. Further, IntelliDyne alleges that the agency improperly failed to evaluate several PWS requirements that were specifically called out under the technical approach factor, which prejudiced the protester because it focused its proposal on those factors. Id. at 7-8.[3]

Where, as here, an agency issues a solicitation to FSS contractors under Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Digital Solutions, Inc., B-402067, Jan. 12, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 26 at 3-4; DEI Consulting, B-401258, July 13, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 151 at 2. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. MVM, Inc., B- 407779, B- 407779.2, Feb. 21, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 76 at 5. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment in its determination of the relative merit of competing proposals does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Id. In reviewing a protest that challenges an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate the proposals, but will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Id. at 5-6.

Key Personnel Qualifications Factor

IntelliDyne incorrectly asserts that the agency improperly evaluated background and security requirements under the key personnel qualifications factor. Protester’s Comments at 3-4. The key personnel qualifications factor required offerors to submit resumes and qualifications of proposed key personnel, including a summary of experience relevant to the PWS. Solicitation, Evaluation – Commercial Items, at 1. As relevant here, section 1.6.11 of the PWS discussed qualifications of specified key personnel, including favorably adjudicated background investigation requirements for these personnel. Further, the adjectival ratings to be assigned here contemplated the degree to which a proposal met or exceeded the solicitation’s requirements.[4] Id. Consequently, a reasonable interpretation of this evaluation criterion, read in conjunction with the PWS requirements, is that the agency was required to consider whether proposed key personnel met the requirement of having a favorably adjudicated background investigation.

IntelliDyne’s proposal was rated good for the key personnel qualifications factor based, at least in part, on the agency evaluating all of its key personnel having favorably adjudicated background investigations. AR, Exh. 5, Consensus Evaluation Reports; Exh. 10, Award Decision, at 7. DHA’s proposal received a lower rating of acceptable based on an evaluated weakness that two of its proposed key personnel did not have completed background investigations. AR, Exh. 5, Consensus Evaluation Reports; Exh. 10, Award Decision, at 5. Given our conclusion that the solicitation reasonably anticipated consideration of whether proposed key personnel had a favorably adjudicated background investigation, IntelliDyne has given us no reason to question the agency’s evaluation, including the adjectival ratings for this evaluation factor.

Technical Approach Factor

IntelliDyne next challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical approach factor. In this regard, the protester argues that the agency improperly failed to consider background and security requirements under this factor. Protester’s Comments at 3. Had the agency done so, IntelliDyne asserts that it would have received a higher rating under this evaluation factor, whereas DHA would have received a lower evaluated rating. Protester’s Comments at 3-6.

Under the technical approach factor, offerors were required to describe their approach to accomplish the PWS. Solicitation, Evaluation – Commercial Items, at 1. Offerors were also instructed to address specific matters in their proposals, including practices in place to recruit and retain key personnel, approach to managing risks, specific management approach, and identification of subcontractors and processes for retaining subcontractors. Additionally, each offeror was required to provide a discussion of its recruitment process, including meeting background and security requirements stated in the PWS. Id.

IntelliDyne first argues that the agency’s failure to consider background and security requirements under this factor resulted in an improperly low rating of its proposal, as it had a clear advantage over DHA in this area. Protester’s Comments at 3. However, USMS assigned IntelliDyne’s proposal a strength under the technical approach factor for including staff with appropriately adjudicated background investigations. AR, Exh. 5, Consensus Evaluation Reports. As a result, the record shows that the technical evaluation board did consider background and security requirements under this factor.[5]

IntelliDyne next asserts that the agency improperly failed to assign a weakness to DHA’s proposal under the technical approach factor for having two key personnel that do not currently “meet the MBI or higher background investigation requirement.” Protester’s Comments at 6. In making this argument, the protester appears to conflate the technical approach factor requirement for an offeror to describe how it would meet background and security requirements as a function of the recruitment process, and the qualification requirements of key personnel under the key personnel qualifications factor.

In this regard, the technical approach factor focused on the process for meeting background and security requirements, whereas the key personnel qualifications factor focused on the qualifications of proposed key personnel. As noted above, we conclude that USMS reasonably considered the background investigation requirements for key personnel under the key personnel qualifications factor. We further conclude that the agency reasonably did not consider the same key personnel qualification requirement under the technical approach factor, as this factor focuses on the process for meeting such requirements, and not key personnel qualifications. As a result of these conclusions, we have no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of DHA’s proposal here. [6]

Source Selection Decision

IntelliDyne next challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff, arguing that the SSA failed to consider the specific matters detailed above in making his award decision. In fashioning its argument, protester points to the source selection decision and notes that the discussion of DHA’s technical approach is missing “any discussion of recruiting and retaining key personnel, a ‘management approach’ for ‘stability of work force,’ ‘verifiable examples of how your company has recruited and retained contractor support,’ or ‘details of your recruitment process including meeting background and security requirements.’” Protester’s Comments at 8. Likewise, IntelliDyne asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its own technical approach was similarly lacking in the same regard.

Source selection decisions must be documented, but there is no need for extensive documentation of every consideration factored into a tradeoff decision. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., B- 408502, Sept. 30, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 240 at 9. Rather, the documentation need only be sufficient to establish that the agency was aware of the relative merits and costs of the competing proposals and that the source selection was reasonably based. Id.

The record shows that the technical evaluation board considered the various specific matters detailed in the technical approach factor and documented its findings in both individual and consensus evaluation reports.[7] AR, Exh. 5, Consensus Evaluation Reports. The consensus evaluation reports are further supported by detailed individual evaluation reports, which discussed various aspects of each proposal. Id. The record also shows that the SSA relied on these findings of the technical evaluation board in reaching his award decision. AR, Exh. 10, Award Decision, at 12. Thus, contrary to the protester’s assertions, the record shows that the SSA considered the various specific matters delineated in the technical approach factor. The fact that the SSA did not discuss all of these matters does not render his source selection decision unreasonable.

Further, it is apparent that source selection decision focused on the discriminators for each factor, and not each and every aspect of the underlying evaluation. For instance, under the technical approach factor, the SSA, like the technical evaluation board, concluded that DHA’s agile approach was superior to that of IntelliDyne’s. AR, Exh. 5, Consensus Evaluation Reports; Exh. 10, at 4-7, 11-12. In reaching his decision, the SSA clearly favored DHA’s approach to moving from the current environment to an agile environment, going as far as to describe IntelliDyne’s proposed approach in this regard as “pedestrian.” AR, Exh. 10, at 12.

Since IntelliDyne does not challenge the agency’s assessment of its proposed agile approach as “pedestrian,” but instead argues that proposing an agile approach was an unstated evaluation criterion, we have no basis to question the agency’s conclusion in this regard.[8] As we conclude that USMS did consider the specific matters delineated in the technical approach factor, there is no basis for us to question the agency’s evaluation of a qualitative difference between IntelliDyne’s and DHA’s technical approach.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the agency reasonably considered the background and security requirements of key personnel under the key personnel qualifications factor. As a result, we have no basis to find that the evaluation under this factor was unreasonable. Additionally, our review of the record in light of protester’s arguments gives us no reason to question the agency’s evaluation under the technical approach factor. Since we have no reason to question the agency’s evaluation under these evaluation factors, we have no reason to conclude that the agency’s award decision was improper.

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling
General Counsel