“DIGEST – Protester is not an interested party for purposes of challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal where the protester has not challenged an intervening offeror, and the record shows that, even if the protest were sustained on this ground, the protester would not be next in line for award.”
“BACKGROUND – The agency issued the TORP on April 3, 2019, seeking acquisition and support services to manage the acquisition portfolio for various offices within CBP. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, TORP at 1. The TORP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 2, 4. The solicitation provided for a best-value tradeoff based on three factors: technical, past performance, and price. Id. at 40-44. The technical factor had three subfactors: technical approach, management and staffing plan, and quality control plan. Id. at 40. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor, and the technical factor was more important than the past performance factor. Id. at 44. The agency conducted an overall evaluation of the technical factor, assigning an adjectival rating at the factor level only, and there was no order of importance for the subfactors under the technical factor. Id. at 40.
The agency received proposals from four offerors, including Panum and Integral. Panum’s proposal received ratings of satisfactory under the technical factor and satisfactory confidence for past performance, with a proposed price of $34,489,699.98. AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 25. Integral’s proposal received ratings of superior for the technical factor and satisfactory confidence for past performance, with a proposed price of $21,312,339.33. Id. Given Integral’s higher rating under the more important non-price factor, as well as its lower price, the agency determined that Integral’s proposal represented the best value and made award to Integral. Id. at 25-26. Panum’s protest followed.
Panum alleges that the agency’s evaluation of Integral’s proposed staffing approach was inconsistent with the terms of the TORP. Specifically, Panum contends that Integral proposed labor categories that did not meet the experience or skill qualifications required by the TORP, and that Integral’s proposal therefore should have received an unsatisfactory rating for the technical factor. The agency and intervenor argue that Panum is not an interested party because the protester did not challenge an intervening offeror that would be in line for award, were we to sustain Panum’s protest and recommend that the award to Integral be terminated. For the reasons discussed below, we find that Panum is not an interested party and dismiss the protest…”
“DECISION – Panum Telcom, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order for acquisition and contract support services to Integral Consulting Services, Inc. (Integral), of Rockville, Maryland, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 002011099 issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Custom and Border Protection (CBP), under the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. Panum protests that the agency’s evaluation of the proposed staffing in the awardee’s technical proposal was inconsistent with the terms of the TORP and applicable law.
We dismiss the protest.”