B-297178.2, TECHi2, LLC, November 28, 2005

B-297178.2 Nov 28, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TECHi2, LLC protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a task order to Anteon Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. G-030500132, issued to acquire command and control strategy support services for the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Command and Control (C2) Integration Division, Expeditionary Force Development Center (EFDC). TECHi2 maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals in making its award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297178.2, TECHi2, LLC, November 28, 2005 Decision Matter of: TECHi2, LLC File: B-297178.2 Date: November 28, 2005 Geoffrey Malafsky for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, LLP, for Anteon Corporation, an intervenor. Judith A. Bonner, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest objecting to agency's evaluation of offerors' past performance is denied where record shows evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION TECHi2, LLC protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a task order to Anteon Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. G-030500132, issued to acquire command and control strategy support services for the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Command and Control (C2) Integration Division, Expeditionary Force Development Center (EFDC). TECHi2 maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals in making its award decision. We deny the protest. GSA, on behalf of the USMC, solicited proposals from FSS contractors to perform, on a time and materials basis, a task order to provide support for the development of a command and control (C2) strategy campaign plan that will serve as the basis for developing USMC C2 systems and training and operational procedures, as well as the performance of an alternate options analysis. The support services to be provided include engineering, the analysis of models, technologies and best practices, and the briefing of various USMC commands. Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, at 1-2. The solicitation provided for a –best value— evaluation based on price and three non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, task technical understanding, and qualifications/experience of personnel. Technical proposals were more important than price. Regarding past performance, the RFP required offerors to provide information describing two contracts (either ongoing, or performed within the last 3 years) that were similar to the current requirement in terms of size, complexity and technical scope, and emphasized that greater evaluation value would be assigned to contracts most directly related to the current requirement. AR, exh. 3, at 2. Anteon and TECHi2 submitted proposals. The agency evaluated the proposals, engaged in discussions with both firms, and obtained and evaluated final proposal revisions (FPR). GSA assigned highly acceptable ratings to both firms' proposals under the past performance and qualifications/experience of personnel factors, and acceptable ratings to both under the task technical understanding factor; overall, both proposals were rated highly acceptable. AR, exh. 12, at 2-4. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency concluded that the two proposals were technically equal, and thus made award to Anteon based on its lower total evaluated price--$1,471,933, versus TECHi2's evaluated price of $1,709,604. TECHi2 asserts that the agency misevaluated the firms' past performance. According to the protester, because it performed the predecessor contract for the current requirement, it should have received a higher past performance rating than Anteon. Where a protester challenges the evaluation of past performance, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, and with relevant procurement statutes and regulations. Hanley Indus., Inc., B-295318, Feb. 2, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 20 at 4. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. TECHi2's performance of the predecessor contract was deemed by the agency to be directly relevant to the current requirement, and its second contract--for the development of a pre-acquisition portal for an enterprise shared data environment for the USMC--was deemed somewhat related, based on a finding that it required preparation of an alternate options analysis, and also demonstrated an understanding of the USMC warfighting and business processes. AR, exh. 7, at 3. Anteon's contracts were found to be similarly relevant.