Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC

B-412990.2 Oct 17, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC (Glacier), a small business of El Paso, Texas, protests the award of a contract to SAWTST, LLC, a small business of Peachtree, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-14-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for test and evaluation technical services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's technical proposal. Additionally, Glacier argues that the Army's cost realism evaluation of SAWTST's proposal was unreasonable, while also contending that the agency improperly adjusted Glacier's proposed labor costs upward. Finally, Glacier asserts that the agency's source selection decision is flawed because it failed to consider the performance risk associated with the awardee's proposal. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC File:  B-412990.2 Date:  October 17, 2016 S. Lane Tucker, Esq., and Sarah R. Langberg, Esq., Stoel Rives LLP, for the protester. Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., and Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the intervenor. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., CPT Meghan E. Mahaney, and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal, as well as the agency’s best-value decision, is sustained where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and award decision failed to acknowledge that an aspect of the awardee’s technical approach was rejected by the agency.  2.  Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation and adjustments to the protester’s proposed labor costs is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a reasonable cost evaluation.  DECISION Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC (Glacier), a small business of El Paso, Texas, protests the award of a contract to SAWTST, LLC, a small business of Peachtree, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-14-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for test and evaluation technical services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal.  Additionally, Glacier argues that the Army’s cost realism evaluation of SAWTST’s proposal was unreasonable, while also contending that the agency improperly adjusted Glacier’s proposed labor costs upward.  Finally, Glacier asserts that the agency’s source selection decision is flawed because it failed to consider the performance risk associated with the awardee’s proposal.  We sustain the protest.  BACKGROUND On July 23, 2015, the Army issued the RFP as a competitive 8(a) set-aside to obtain proposals for administrative support, data management, data collection, instrumentation, information technology services, and logistics support for various Army test centers and directorates.[1]  RFP at 1-2, 7.  The solicitation was conducted pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, and contemplated the award of a cost‑plus-fixed fee indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) single award contract with a 5-year period of performance.  Id. at 2, 10, 102, 115.  The RFP contemplated that the award would be made on a best-value basis, considering the following three factors:  (1) mission capability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost.  Id. at 115.  Pursuant to the solicitation, mission capability was considered more important than past performance, and the two non-cost factors when combined were significantly more important than cost.  Id. The mission capability factor was comprised of the following three subfactors:  (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; and (3) response to the patriot task authorization request.  Id. at 107.  The technical approach subfactor was significantly more important than the management approach subfactor, while the management approach subfactor was equally as important as the patriot task authorization request task order subfactor.  Id. at 116.  When the technical approach and management approach subfactors were combined, they were more important than the patriot task authorization request subfactor.  Id. With regard to the management approach subfactor, offerors were required to submit a proposal demonstrating an organizational structure that promoted the “efficient and flexible utilization” of the contractor’s personnel.  Id.