Smith-Richardson Inc

B-410736 Feb 03, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Smith-Richardson, Inc., of Carrollton, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia, by the Department of Defense (DOD), Missile Defense Agency (MDA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0147-13-R-005, for learning asset development, sustainment, and support for the Defense Acquisition University. Smith-Richardson argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm's proposal as unacceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Smith-Richardson, Inc. File: B-410736 Date: February 3, 2015 Jody J. Smith, Smith-Richardson, Inc., for the protester. Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for Computer Sciences Corporation, the intervenor. Capt. Vera A. Strebel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal as unacceptable is denied where contemporaneous record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria in solicitation. DECISION Smith-Richardson, Inc., of Carrollton, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia, by the Department of Defense (DOD), Missile Defense Agency (MDA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0147‑13-R-005, for learning asset development, sustainment, and support for the Defense Acquisition University. Smith-Richardson argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm’s proposal as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The MDA issued the RFP on May 9, 2014, seeking proposals for services to provide a variety of acquisition-related learning assets--such as distance learning courses, classroom courses, and gaming and simulation applications--to be distributed principally by the Defense Acquisition University. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3.3, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 2. The services were described in an accompanying PWS, and the contractor’s performance was to be assessed under an accompanying quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP). AR, Tabs 3.3 (PWS) & 3.4 (QASP). The MDA was to award a single 5-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value. RFP ¶ M-2.0. The determination of best value was to be based on four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, past performance, management, and cost/price. RFP ¶ M‑3.0. The technical factor had three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: technical expertise; learning asset development and sustainment; and project planning and technical approach. Id. The management factor had three subfactors, also in descending order of importance: teaming and staffing; management approach; and small business participation and commitment. Id. The technical and management evaluations were to identify strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, which would be reflected in adjectival ratings for both quality and risk.[1] Id. The RFP also cautioned that a deficiency[2] in a proposal could render it ineligible for award. Id. The qualitative ratings, set forth in a chart, were outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. An unacceptable rating was to be used where the proposal “does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.” Id. Risk was to be rated as low, moderate, or high.[3] Id. For the remaining factors, past performance was to be rated adjectivally to describe a level of confidence of successful performance. Id. The cost/price factor was to be evaluated using the offeror’s approach to an initial task order, and was also to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Id. Seven offerors submitted timely proposals. After conducting a technical evaluation, the agency determined that five of the proposals, including Smith-Richardson’s, were technically unacceptable. AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision, at 3‑4. The evaluation of Smith-Richardson’s proposal under the technical factor identified one significant weakness and two deficiencies under the technical expertise subfactor; one strength, four weaknesses, and one significant weakness under the learning asset development and sustainment subfactor; and two deficiencies under the project planning and technical approach subfactor. AR, Tab 11, Debriefing, at 16-27. Under the past performance factor, the agency found that Smith-Richardson had three recent “somewhat relevant” references, each of which showed exceptional performance by the firm. Id. at 29.