IT Enterprise Solutions JV, LLC.

B-412036.3 Jan 31, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IT Enterprise Solutions JV, LLC (ITES), of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Valdez International Corporation (Valdez), of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by the Department of the Air Force (AF) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8773-15-R-8007, for Integrated Air Force Network Operations Services (IAFNOS). The protester argues that the Air Force misevaluated its past performance and performed an improper best-value tradeoff analysis. 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:  IT Enterprise Solutions JV, LLC. File:  B-412036.3 Date:   January 31, 2017 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Stephen Kelleher, Esq., and Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Robert S. Gardner, Esq., Laura A. Gardner, Esq., Celeste R. Gamache, Esq., and Angeline R. Burke, Esq., Robert S. Gardner Law Office, for Valdez International Corporation, the intervenor. Maj. David S. Gilkes, Libbi Finelsen, Esq., and Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s best-value award decision was proper where the solicitation provided for a competitive source selection decision and permitted the agency to elect to trade present/past performance for price. DECISION IT Enterprise Solutions JV, LLC (ITES),[1] of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Valdez International Corporation (Valdez), of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by the Department of the Air Force (AF) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8773-15-R-8007, for Integrated Air Force Network Operations Services (IAFNOS).  The protester argues that the Air Force misevaluated its past performance and performed an improper best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on March 13, 2015, as a women-owned small business (WOSB) set-aside, seeks services supporting Air Force Information Network (AFIN) operations.  These services include defensive cyberspace operations; network management; information assurance; and fault resolution activities to maintain the operational capabilities of the network, establish the domain for AF cyberspace operations, and ensure Air Force Cyberspace superiority.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract (with a few cost-reimbursable line items for travel and other direct costs) for a 12-month base period, four one-year option periods, and one six-month extension.  Id. at 4. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis, considering technical, past performance, and price factors.  RFP at 97.  Under the technical factor, proposals were to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable under each of five subfactors, with only technically acceptable proposals considered for award.[2]  RFP at 97-98.  Past performance and price were then to be evaluated on an “approximately equal” basis, with “present/past performance [traded] for price if warranted.”  RFP at 97.  The solicitation further provided in this connection that: IAW [in accordance with] FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 15.101‑1(c), the government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower.  In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Id. In connection with the evaluation of past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to submit past performance information on no more than eight recent relevant contracts performed by the offeror, its subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners.  RFP at 89.  The information submitted was to include “a cross-reference matrix identifying the PWS [Performance Work Statement] reference and the team member(s) proposed to perform that function.”  Id.  Offerors were cautioned that the agency would use both the information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources in its evaluation of past performance. Id.