Global Dimensions LLC

B-411288 Jun 30, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Dimensions, LLC, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Bluehawk Intelligence Services, LLC, of West Palm Beach, Florida, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4814-15-R-0001 for commercial exercise planning and translation services for the United States Central Command headquarters at McDill Air Force Base in Florida. Global argues that the Air Force misevaluated Bluehawk's proposal and made an unreasonable source selection 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. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Global Dimensions, LLC File: B-411288 Date: June 30, 2015 Michael J. Gardner, Esq., and Shomari Brock Wade, Esq., Troutman Sanders LLP, for the protester. Lt. Col. James. H. Kennedy, III, Lt. Col. Mark E. Allen, Maj. Carlos M. De Dios, and Capt. Joshua A. Roman, Department of the Air Force, 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 1. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s proposed candidate for military exercise planning position under requirement for 5 years of exercise planning experience is denied where evaluators reasonably concluded that although the candidate’s job title specifically included exercise planning for only 2 years, the candidate’s experience in the prior 3 years included exercise planning responsibility. 2. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s past performance as relevant is denied where evaluators recognized awardee’s performance record did not include the specific services at issue, but nevertheless reasonably concluded that its performance record was relevant, and where evaluators’ consideration of major subcontractor’s past performance on highly-relevant contracts was consistent with solicitation’s terms. DECISION Global Dimensions, LLC, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Bluehawk Intelligence Services, LLC, of West Palm Beach, Florida, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4814‑15‑R‑0001 for commercial exercise planning and translation services for the United States Central Command headquarters at McDill Air Force Base in Florida. Global argues that the Air Force misevaluated Bluehawk’s proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on December 30, 2014, as a commercial item solicitation, seeking the services of a full-time Arabic-speaking military exercise planner and additional linguist personnel on a periodic basis, “as dictated by the exercise lead planner.” Agency Report (AR) at 1; RFP at 22-23. The RFP was set aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses, and requested fixed-price proposals for a single indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 4 option years. RFP at 22-23. The RFP identified three evaluation factors: price, mission capability, and past performance. RFP at 54. Under the mission capability factor, proposals were to be evaluated to determine technical acceptability; that is, on a pass/fail basis. Id. The RFP then listed five criteria, the first two of which applied to the exercise planner’s qualifications. The proposed exercise planner was required to have “a minimum of 5 years of exercise planning experience at the US Combatant Command level or equivalent,” and to have “a minimum of 5 years of translator/linguist experience” in Arabic at a specified high level of fluency. Id. With respect to past performance, the RFP required the submission of past performance information for the offeror and “all subcontractors . . . who are proposed to perform twenty percent or more of the proposed effort . . . or perform aspects . . . critical to overall successful performance.” RFP at 52. The evaluation was to assess relevant performance references, focusing particularly on “performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor.” Id. The highest past performance rating, substantial confidence, was defined as past performance that showed “a high expectation” of successful contract performance; whereas the next lower rating, satisfactory confidence, applied where the record showed a “reasonable expectation” of successful performance.