Decision Released: Millenium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division Support Services protest denial

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.

DISCUSSION

Attesa challenges the agency’s assessment of three weaknesses resulting from the protester’s phase III oral presentation.4  But for these alleged errors, the protester contends that its proposal would have been more favorably evaluated and, thus, the agency may have reached a different tradeoff decision based on the protester’s lower proposed price.  The agency defends the reasonableness of its evaluation, arguing that its evaluation was adequately documented, reasonable, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  For the reasons that follow, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest…

Attesa first challenges the weakness assigned to its proposal for the proposed use of a “three strike rule” for performance management.  Specifically, the agency, while noting that Attesa proposed that its senior contract specialists would have “heavy involvement in correcting poor performance or behaviors,” nevertheless was concerned that the protester’s proposed “three strike” policy before removing a poorly performing individual “may not be realistic, especially for new [individuals], depending on how egregious their performance failures are.”  AR, Tab 22, Business Clearance Memorandum at 421.  Attesa contends that this weakness is unreasonable because it merely assumes that the protester would not take more aggressive steps to remove a severely underperforming individual, and further argues that its approach warranted a strength for its beneficial impact on employee retention…

Next, Attesa challenges the weakness assigned to its proposal for only offering its personnel one health insurance option.  Specifically, the agency represented that prior to the issuance of the solicitation it conducted a survey of personnel of one of Attesa’s joint venturers performing the incumbent requirements, and some of the respondents expressed concerns over the limited number of available health insurance options.  AR, Tab 21, Consensus Eval. Report at 401.  The agency, in a sworn declaration executed by both the contracting officer and technical evaluation panel chairperson, represents that the agency inquired during the oral presentation regarding the number of available health insurance options proposed by Attesa and the protester represented that it would only offer one option.  See Joint Decl. of Contracting Officer & Tech. Eval. Panel Chairperson ¶¶ 6-7.  The evaluators subsequently assigned a weakness based on the single insurance offering.  AR, Tab 21, Consensus Eval. Report, at 401…

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.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story