General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

Decision

Matter of:  General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

File:  B-416552

Date:  October 12, 2018

DIGEST

Agency reasonably excluded protester’s proposal from the competitive range where the agency evaluated the proposal as containing multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses under the most important evaluation factor.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Westwood, Massachusetts, protests the Department of the Army’s exclusion of GDIT’s proposal from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-17-R-0014 to provide training and related support services for the Army Intelligence Center of Excellence (ICoE) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.[1]  Among other things, GDIT asserts that the agency improperly identified multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

In August 2017, the agency issued RFP No. W900KK-17-R-0014, seeking proposals for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide services in the areas of training, training development, and training support for the ICoE and its organizational elements located primarily at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. [2]  The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, and established the following evaluation factors:  program management, small business participation, past  performance, and cost/price.  The solicitation provided that the non-cost/price factors were significantly more important than cost/price, and that the program management factor was “significantly more important than the other non-cost/price factors combined.”  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 81.  The solicitation further provided that, in evaluating the program management factor, the agency would assign ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable[3]--and stated that, to be considered for award, a proposal “must achieve a rating of ACCEPTABLE (or better)” under this most important factor.[4]  Id. at 81.  Finally, the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to make award without discussions, but also provided notice that the agency retained the discretion to establish a competitive range and to, thereafter, conduct discussions.  Id. 

On or before the closing date, proposals were submitted by several offerors, including GDIT.  In its evaluation under the program management factor, the agency assessed multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal.[5]  Among other things, the agency concluded that GDIT’s proposal was flawed with regard to its staffing structure and key personnel; its task order modification procedures; its approach to the solicitation’s program flexibility requirements; its approach to the solicitation’s other-than-normal working hours requirements; and its transition plan.  AR, Tab 3, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 15-33.  Accordingly, with regard to the program management factor--which the solicitation stated was significantly more important than all of the other non-cost/price factors combined--the agency concluded that GDIT’s proposal “has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is high.”  Id. at 15.  Accordingly, the agency assigned a rating of marginal to GDIT’s proposal and excluded the proposal from the competitive range.[6]  GDIT was subsequently notified of its exclusion from the competitive range.  This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

GDIT challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process, including the agency’s evaluation of GDIT’s proposal under the most important program management evaluation factor which, as described by GDIT, “drove the decision” to exclude GDIT from the competitive range.  Protest at 14.  In this regard, GDIT asserts that “none of the weaknesses assigned to GDIT’s proposal [under the program management factor] are defensible,” and maintains that GDIT should have received “at least a Good rating under the critical Program Management factor.”  Protest at 14.  We disagree. 

The evaluation of offerors’ proposals, and the determination of whether proposals are in the competitive range, are matters within the contracting agency’s broad discretion and sound judgment, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  See, e.g., Highmark Medicare Servs., Inc., et al., B‑401062.5 et al., Oct. 29, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 285 at 12; Dismas Charities, Inc., B‑284654, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 84 at 3-4.  In this regard, an agency may properly exclude a proposal from the competitive range where it determines the proposal has no realistic prospect for award.  See, e.g., Environmental Restoration, LLC, B-413781, Dec. 30, 2016, 2017 CPD ¶ 15 at 3.  Accordingly, in reviewing protests that challenge an agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals or its competitive range determination, our Office will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to determine if the agency’s exercise of its discretion was reasonable, adequately documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  See, e.g., Alutiiq Tech. Servs. LLC, B-411464, B‑411464.2, Aug. 4, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 268 at 4.

Here, based on our review of the record, we find no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of GDIT’s proposal or its determination to exclude GDIT’s proposal from the competitive range.  First, the record reasonably supports the agency’s assessment of multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal.  Next, based on that assessment, the agency reasonably concluded that GDIT’s proposal did not have a realistic chance of award.

For example, in evaluating GDIT’s proposal under the program management factor, the agency concluded that the proposal contained conflicting and inconsistent information regarding its proposed management structure.  More specifically, contrary to the solicitation requirement that an offeror must “clearly convey” its capability to provide program management and associated administrative support, see RFP at 74, the agency found that GDIT’s proposal reflected differing numbers of key personnel and program management staff in different parts of its proposal.  AR, Tab 3, SSEB Report at 27-28 (“[GDIT] proposes and/or identifies either [redacted], [redacted], or [redacted] Key Personnel assigned to PM [program management] support.”).  The agency further noted that GDIT’s proposal “assigns the same tasks and responsibilities to several different positions,” noting that, for example, the responsibility of [redacted] was assigned to [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], leaving confusion as to whom the agency should be communicating with to resolve [redacted] issues.  Id. at 27-28.  Similarly, the agency found that GDIT’s proposal assigned the responsibility to [redacted] and [redacted] to [redacted] as well as to [redacted], again leaving unresolved with whom the agency should be communicating to resolve [redacted] issues.  Id. 

By way of another example, the agency concluded that GDIT’s proposal contemplated that some of the personnel assigned as direct labor to perform the requirements of subsequently-issued task orders would also be performing project management duties--which was contrary to the solicitation’s requirements.[7]  Id. at 19.  The agency noted that “diversion of personnel from [task order] requirements to provide PM [project management] support adversely impacts the efficiency and availability of personnel assigned to the [task orders]” and “increas[es the] costs associated with PM support.”  Id.

Finally, by way of yet another example, the agency criticized GDIT’s proposal with regard to meeting the solicitation’s task order modification requirements, which stated that offerors were to provide “detailed TO [task order]/modification procedures.”  AR, Tab 11, Statement of Objectives, at 2.  The agency noted that GDIT’s proposal reflected a proposed [redacted] “turnaround time,” yet, GDIT’s proposal contained “no details regarding communication/procedures to working . . . with the Government[,] nor did the proposal objectively demonstrate the feasibility of meeting [its proposed turnaround time].”  AR, Tab 3, SSEB Report at 20. 

Based on our review of GDIT’s proposal, and the agency’s evaluation thereof, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency’s assessment of multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal.  For example, although GDIT asserts that the agency “erroneous[ly]” concluded that GDIT had proposed task order personnel to perform program management activities, Protest at 15, GDIT’s proposal specifically listed such personnel in a chart titled “Program Management Organization”, and the proposal’s narrative description of that chart was labeled “GDIT’s PMO [program management organization] Structure.”  AR, Tab 12a, GDIT Proposal Vol. II, at 13, 51.  Similarly, although GDIT asserts that its approach which “divid[ed] [redacted] areas of responsibility [redacted], see Protest at 26, should have been viewed by the agency as creating only a “minor inconvenience” due to necessitating communications with multiple points of contact, GDIT’s disagreement with the agency’s judgement in this regard does not render the agency’s assessments “erroneous.”

Here, the solicitation specifically provided that an offeror was required to clearly convey its ability to provide program management “with minimal risk” while meeting the solicitation’s objectives with “cost/schedule/performance effectiveness.”  RFP at 74.  Further, offerors were warned that the agency was not obligated to conduct discussions and, accordingly, advised that their initial proposals should contain their best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint.  Id. at 81. 

Finally, as noted above, the solicitation specifically advised offerors that the program management factor was significantly more important than all of the other non-cost/price factors combined and that, to be considered for award, an offeror must be rated acceptable or better under that most important factor.  Id.  Based on our review of the record, the agency reasonably concluded that GDIT’s initial proposal failed to meet the stated criteria, leading to the agency’s determination that the proposal did not have a realistic chance of award. 

In summary, the record establishes that the agency reasonably determined that GDIT’s proposal failed to comply with various solicitation requirements; that its program management approach reflected a proposed staffing approach in which the performance of subsequently-issued task orders was improperly intermingled with program management activities; that its proposed approach created confusion with regard to the agency’s points of contact during contract performance; and that the proposal failed to include adequate detail regarding the feasibility of certain proposed objectives.  On this basis, the agency reasonably concluded that GDIT’s initial proposal did not demonstrate an adequate approach to, or understanding of, the program management requirements; that the risk of unsuccessful performance was high; and that the proposal did not have a realistic chance of award.  Our review of the record provides no basis to question any of the agency’s determinations in this regard and, accordingly, we find no basis to question the agency’s determination that GDIT’s proposal did not warrant further consideration.

The protest is denied. [8]

Thomas A. Armstrong
General Counsel