“DIGEST- Protest challenging the evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.”
“BACKGROUND – …The RFP required offerors to submit their proposals in five separate volumes: experience; technical capability; past performance; evaluation factors for servicedisabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) and veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs); and price and other documents.1 RFP at 100. As relevant here, the technical capability volume required offerors to explain how they intended to satisfy the requirements in the performance work statement (PWS). Among other things, offerors were to submit biographies for proposed key personnel that “clearly demonstrate” the personnel would meet the requirements provided in the PWS. Id. at 102. Specifically, the RFP required that proposed program managers possess 12 years of experience, plus either a certification in project management or four more years of experience in a related field. Id. at 25. For past performance, the RFP required offerors to identify up to three relevant contracts. Id. The RFP provided that the agency would determine relevancy based on the “size, scope, and complexity of [the] requirement…”
“DISCUSSION -… Here, the TET assigned a rating of “unsatisfactory” to GKG’s proposal under the technical capability factor because the evaluators concluded that one of GKG’s proposed key personnel failed to meet the requirements of the PWS. AR, Tab K, GKG’s Technical Evaluation at 1. Specifically, the TET found deficient the biography submitted by GKG for its proposed program manager because the biography failed to demonstrate that the program manager had a “certification in project management” or “additional 4 years’ experience in a related field,” as required by the PWS. Id. at 11; RFP at 25. The TET thus concluded that it was unclear whether the program manager had the required experience, and assigned GKG’s proposal a deficiency. GKG’s Technical evaluation at 11. In its protest, GKG contends that its proposed program manager had 26 years of experience. Protest at 10. GKG admits, however, that it “inadvertently omitted, through an editing error, several years of [the program manager’s] experience” in the biography it provided for its program manager. Protest at 15. Notwithstanding this omission, GKG contends that the TET should have determined that GKG’s program manager still satisfied the requirements of the PWS. Id. at 15-16. Specifically, GKG contends that the rest of its technical proposal, including the remainder of the biography for its program manager, demonstrated that GKG’s program manager possessed the requisite experience. Id. If there was any uncertainty, GKG contends that the VA should have sought clarification…”
“DECISION- Golden Key Group (GKG), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to CALIBRE Systems, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10X20R0028, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for support services to aid in the VA’s transition assistance program (TAP). The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was arbitrary and capricious. We deny the protest.”
