Blog

The protester further explains that based on the limited commitment agreed to by this individual, and “in the interest of transparency,” the protester did not propose this individual for the option years. Id.The protester maintains that its intent in completing its attachment P3 with a specific individual named only for the base year was to indicate “that, after the base year of performance, should the option year be exercised, might substitute a ‘prospective hire.’” Id. The protester’s argument is built around an assumption that the individual proposed by the awardee to perform in the service desk tools project manager key position cannot and will not be reassigned to perform different duties within the awardee’s organization, and cannot and will not relocate to Patuxent River, Maryland. In support of this assumption, the protester provides only its own speculation regarding the veracity of the awardee’s proposal statements coupled with the awardee’s post-award issuance of a hiring announcement. The protester maintains it reasonably interpreted the solicitation’s requirement that offerors provide resumes for “any proposed Key Personnel” as applying only to individuals “proposed to work at the start of contract award.” Supp. Protest at 6; Comments at 5.

Accordingly, we do not discuss further these arguments. The evaluators assessed the protester’s proposal as a “fail” under the key person position for which the protester proposed a specific individual only for the base year. AR, Tab 12, Protester’s Evaluation at 708.

HumanTouch, LLC team size is 113 employees

The hiring announcement describes job requirements similar to those of the service desk tools project manager position, and states that it is for work at the agency’s enterprise service desk in Patuxent River, Maryland. 1, Hiring Announcement at 2. The protester contends that the hiring announcement shows that “only a few days after award, the awardee was seeking to make a prospective hire, for the same position for which was eliminated.” Supp. The record reflects, however, that the awardee proposed a specific individual who is a current employee of the awardee to perform in the service desk tools project manager position for the base year and all option years of the contract. AR, Tab 13, Awardee’s Attachment P3 at 712; AR, Tab 14, Awardee’s Proposal at 769.

AR, Tab 22, Humantouch, Llc Evaluator Certification at 1-2. Moreover, our review of the record reveals no evidence to support the protester’s attribution of unfair or prejudicial motives to the evaluator’s review. Invertix Corp., supra at 6; CACI Techs., Inc., supra at 8. Protest alleging disparate treatment is denied because the record reflects that the differences in evaluations resulted from differences in the offerors’ proposals. The contractor agrees that during the term of the Task Order no key personnel substitutions or additions will be made unless necessitated by compelling reasons. Although we do not specifically address every permutation of the protester’s arguments that the agency evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation, or that the solicitation was somehow latently ambiguous, we fully considered them all and find that none of the protester’s arguments provide a basis to sustain the protest.

Letter to the Editor: Driving cloud adoption requires much more than a single vendor JEDI award

Protest at 6; Comments at 6. The protester argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to eliminate the firm’s proposal for failing to provide a resume for a service desk tools project manager in the option years because requiring a resume for a post-award personnel substitution is contrary of the terms of the solicitation. Protest at 5-6. The protester further contends that the agency’s evaluation reveals a latent ambiguity between the solicitation’s key personnel proposal requirements and the key personnel substitution clause.

• In support of its disparate treatment allegation, the protester points to a hiring announcement posted by the awardee a few days after issuance of the task order.
• HumanTouch also contends that the agency evaluated proposals in a disparate manner.
• Id.The protester maintains that its intent in completing its attachment P3 with a specific individual named only for the base year was to indicate “that, after the base year of performance, should the option year be exercised, might substitute a ‘prospective hire.’” Id.
• From the Department of Defense to civilian federal agencies in health care and commerce, we are solving complex and unique data challenges.
• Although we do not specifically address every permutation of the protester’s arguments that the agency evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation, or that the solicitation was somehow latently ambiguous, we fully considered them all and find that none of the protester’s arguments provide a basis to sustain the protest.

Accordingly, we https://adprun.net/ personal conflict of interest allegation. HumanTouch challenges the agency’s determination that the firm’s proposal was ineligible for award, arguing that the agency evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation and that the evaluation revealed a latent ambiguity in the solicitation. HumanTouch also contends that the agency evaluated proposals in a disparate manner. For the reasons explained below, we deny the protest. Here, the record shows that the evaluator in question left the employ of the awardee approximately six years and five months prior to the issuance of the solicitation. AR, Tab 21, Technical Evaluator Decl.

HumanTouch, LLC

We know how to support agencies and departments in their digital transformation journey. Whether it is building a scalable, secure government cloud or AI/NLP that reads millions of records in hours, we help our customers use data to their full advantage. The Service Desk/Help Desk Project Manager is expected to introduce and implement new processes, quality assurance procedures and be extremely customer focused.

• The agency received ten offers, including those submitted by HumanTouch ($46,696,702) and PSI Pax ($57,786,956).AR, Tab 17, Task Order Review Panel Memorandum of Consensus at 809.
• Based on this record, we conclude that the difference in evaluations stemmed, not from disparate treatment, but from differences in the offerors’ proposals–namely the awardee’s compliance with the solicitation’s instructions for proposing key personnel and the protester’s failure to comply with those same instructions.
• The protester further contends that the agency’s evaluation reveals a latent ambiguity between the solicitation’s key personnel proposal requirements and the key personnel substitution clause.
• We find unavailing the protester’s argument that it did not “propose” an unidentified prospective hire for the option years.
• The value of the protested task order exceeds $25 million.
• Thus, the agency maintains it reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal.
• Id. at 707, 710.

HumanTouch argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to assign a rating of fail to its proposal under the key personnel factor because all of the firm’s proposed key personnel met or exceeded the solicitation requirements. Protest at 10‑13. HumanTouch also argues that it was improper for the agency to assign a rating of fail to its proposal for not including a letter of commitment for the service desk tools project manager because the proposed individual is a current employee, and the solicitation did not require letters of commitment from current employees. Protest at 2-5; Comments at 1. These arguments are misplaced, however, because, as discussed above, the agency rejected the protester’s proposal due to the firm’s failure to identify or include a resume for an individual to fill the service desk tools project manager key person position in the option years of the contract.

Advancing people, systems, and missions with technology.

See AR, Tab 3, RFP Section L at 92 . Further, the cost/price section of the solicitation’s instructions required offerors to submit a completed attachment P3 with their proposals, in which firms were to identify “each current, contingent, and/or prospective hire employee proposed under the effort.” AR, Tab 3, RFP Section L at 94 . Attachment P3 included columns for offers to provide the required information for the base year and all option years, indicating that “the effort” for which offerors were to submit the required information encompassed all performance periods, not just the base year of the contract. See AR, Tab 11, Protester’s Proposal at 486. The solicitation established that the service desk tools project manager position will be 95 percent performed at the agency’s facility in Patuxent River, Maryland. The protester explains that it proposed the incumbent project manager only for the base year of the contract because this individual “recently moved out of the area and works remotely.” The company further explains that at the time proposals were being prepared this individual “was willing to make an initial commitment” for only one year.

• AR, Tab 13, Awardee’s Attachment P3 at 712; AR, Tab 14, Awardee’s Proposal at 769.
• Accordingly, we deny the protester’s personal conflict of interest allegation.
• In support of this assumption, the protester provides only its own speculation regarding the veracity of the awardee’s proposal statements coupled with the awardee’s post-award issuance of a hiring announcement.
• Kiosk is the right solution for IT and CX teams to leverage an innovative approach to deliver exceptional service.
• Id.The evaluators recommended award to PSI Pax, and based on the evaluations and a comparison of the three eligible proposals, the source selection authority concurred in the recommendation and selected PSI Pax’s proposal for award.

HumanTouch operates in the United States. Demonstrate knowledge and experience with IT project management and IT operations, specifically in the areas of IT Service Desk and PC deployment. HumanTouch, LLC has over 20 years of expertise and solutions in Cloud services, cybersecurity, infrastructure engineering, operations management, engineering, and strategy/modernization for federal and corporate clients. Our quality services are empowered by our proven teams and subject matter experts. Customer service and the highest performance standards are our mission, every day. We deliver truly unique solutions, with staff who stand with you throughout the program.