Cherokee Nation Technologies, LLC

B-411140 May 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cherokee Nation Technology Solutions, Inc., a small business located in Catoosa, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of a task order to AGEISS, Inc., located in Evergreen, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8903-13-R-9999-R062, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for advisory and assistance services. Cherokee, the incumbent contractor, challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical and past performance factors, as well as the agency's best value tradeoff decision. 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 version, with no redactions, has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Cherokee Nation Technology Solutions, LLC File: B-411140 Date: May 22, 2015 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Julia Di Vito, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Steven J. Koprince, Esq., and Amanda M. Wilwert, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for AGEISS, Inc., the intervenor. Christine Piper, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the technical and past performance factors is denied where the agency evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging agency’s selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for award is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s best value award criteria. DECISION Cherokee Nation Technology Solutions, Inc., a ­­­small business located in Catoosa, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of a task order to AGEISS, Inc., located in Evergreen, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8903‑13‑R‑9999‑R062, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for advisory and assistance services. Cherokee, the incumbent contractor, challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the technical and past performance factors, as well as the agency’s best value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 11, 2014, sought programmatic, financial, and specialized technical support for the Air Force’s environmental restoration and military munitions response programs at Joint Base San Antonio in Lackland, Texas, under the Global Engineering, Integration, and Technical Assistance 2011 (GEITA11) contract. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 12-month base period of performance and two 12-month options. The solicitation established a best-value selection process considering, in descending order of importance, technical, past performance, and price factors.[1] RFP at 2. The technical factor was comprised of the following two subfactors (in order of importance): (1) technical capability/understanding of the requirement; and (2) personnel/team qualifications. Id. at 3. In connection with the first technical subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to submit an explicit technical plan describing the offeror’s proposed concept of operations as well as methods and processes to perform the task order objectives and to satisfy all the requirements in the performance work statement (PWS). Id. at 4. The RFP also established a list of specific requirements for the technical plan. Id. With regard to the second technical subfactor, the RFP advised offerors to submit a comprehensive plan that demonstrated knowledge and capabilities with the environmental restoration program, the military munitions response program, the program requirements development (PRD) process, and performance based remediation, or the ability to obtain the resources needed to perform the task order prior to the start of performance. Id. at 5. Offerors were also required to document the relevant qualifications of proposed management, technical onsite, and reach‑back personnel supporting the PWS requirements under the second technical subfactor. Id. The RFP provided for two distinct but related assessments under each technical subfactor: (1) a technical rating; and (2) a technical risk rating. Id. at 3. The technical rating was to reflect the quality of the offeror’s proposed solution for meeting the requirements; possible ratings ranged from outstanding to unacceptable.[2] Id. The technical risk rating was to reflect the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement based on the weaknesses identified; the potential for schedule disruption, increased costs, or degradation of performance; the need for increased government oversight; or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance. Id. at 4.