Lanmark Technology, Inc.

B-410214.3 Mar 20, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lanmark Technology, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI-Athena, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposal (RFP) No. HQ0682-14-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), for operations research and systems analysis. Lanmark challenges JIEDDO's evaluation of its and CACI-Athena's technical proposals, as well as the agency's evaluation of CACI-Athena's past performance. The protester also argues that the best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Lanmark Technology, Inc. File: B-410214.3 Date: March 20, 2015 Theodore P. Watson, Esq., Nicole L. Carter, Esq., and Leanna Ajour, Esq., Watson & Associates, LLC, for the protester. Craig S. King, Esq., Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Christopher Bowen, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the intervenor. Maj. Michael G. Pond, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal is denied where the record reflects that the agency did not improperly evaluate the awardee’s proposal, as asserted by the protester, based on the technical expertise of the awardee’s parent company and an affiliated company. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 4. Agency’s selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable, and where the agency adequately documented its tradeoff rationale. DECISION Lanmark Technology, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI-Athena, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposal (RFP) No. HQ0682-14-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), for operations research and systems analysis. Lanmark challenges JIEDDO’s evaluation of its and CACI-Athena’s technical proposals, as well as the agency’s evaluation of CACI-Athena’s past performance. The protester also argues that the best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2014, JIEDDO issued the RFP seeking deployed and non-deployed operational assistance in support of JIEDDO’s mission to conduct operations research/systems analysis (ORSA) to support analysis on defeating improvised explosive devices as weapons of strategic influence. RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1. The contract sought deployed analytic support outside the continental United States (OCONUS), as well as on-site analytic support, primarily at JIEDDO headquarters, located in the continental United States (CONUS). Id. at 16. The RFP anticipated a time-and-materials contract for a base year and two 1‑year options. RFP at 67. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis, considering four factors: (1) technical approach, (2) management approach, (3), past performance, and (4) price. Id. The solicitation stated that the technical approach factor and management approach factor “are the most important factors and are approximately equal to each other.” Id. at 66. In addition, the RFP stated that the technical approach factor and management approach factor, individually and collectively, were to be more important than the past performance factor, and that the past performance factor was to be more important than price. Id. The RFP stated that an offeror’s proposal would be evaluated under the technical approach factor based on the offeror’s understanding of and ability to meet all technical requirements of the primary PWS tasks at a high-quality level using proposed tools, methods, processes and frameworks. RFP at 67. Under the management approach factor, the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s proposed approach to “planning, directing, and managing the services in the PWS from start‑up through the life of the contract, including identification of management risk, the degree of such risk, and proposed mitigation.” RFP at 67.