CBAIA

B-413352 Oct 12, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Carl, Amber, Brian, Isiah, and Associates Company (CBAIA), of Stafford, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Skylla Engineering, Ltd. (Skylla), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3043, issued by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Systems Command, for program office support services for the product manager and subordinate product teams in the MAGTF Command and Control Systems (PdM MC2S). The protester challenges the agency's technical evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Carl, Amber, Brian, Isiah, and Associates Company, d/b/aCBAIA File:  B-413352 Date:  October 12, 2016 Carl Lawson, CBAIA, for the protester. Brent Curtis, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST A protester’s proposal was reasonably found to be technically unacceptable where it failed to address specific solicitation requirements. DECISION Carl, Amber, Brian, Isiah, and Associates Company (CBAIA), of Stafford, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Skylla Engineering, Ltd. (Skylla), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3043, issued by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Systems Command, for program office support services for the product manager and subordinate product teams in the MAGTF Command and Control Systems (PdM MC2S).[1]  The protester challenges the agency’s technical evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 10, 2015, the RFP was issued as a set-aside for Zone 2 small business holders of the SeaPort-e indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract.  RFP at 1, 57.  The RFP sought program office support services for PdM MC2S and three subordinate multi-disciplinary, integrated product teams, including, as relevant here, the:  (1) Combat Operations Center (COC), (2) Extensible MAGTF Command and Control (EMC2), and (3) MAGTF Command and Control Systems and Application (MC2SA).  RFP, PWS at 7-10.  As additionally relevant here, programs within the EMC2 include networking-on-the-move (NOTM), while programs within the MC2SA include Global Command and Control System-Tactical Combat Operations (GCCS-TCO); Joint Tactical Common Operational Picture Workstation (JTCW), Tactical Services Oriented Architecture (TSOA).  Id. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a base year and four one-year option periods.  RFP at 65.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  Id. at 65, 66.  The RFP stated that technical capability was more important than past performance, and price, when compared to the non-price factors, was significantly less important.  Id. at 66.  Section L of the RFP required that under the technical capability factor, offerors address two subfactors:  the management approach, and staffing and personnel.  Id. at 60.  As relevant here, the management approach subfactor required offerors to provide management, transition, and quality assurance plans.  Id.  An offeror’s management plan was required to address various areas, including a description of how the offeror’s proposed organizational structure and office systems would ensure effectiveness and efficiency when interfacing with PdM MC2S team leads.[2]  Id.  Section M of the RFP advised that the evaluation of the management approach would include eight different criteria, including, as relevant here, an offeror’s understanding of the inter-dependencies/inter-relationships of the programs within the PdM MC2S portfolio.[3]  Id. at 69.  As also relevant here, section M advised that the technical capability factor would be evaluated at a factor level and that offerors would receive a color-coded combined technical risk and adjectival rating, under which the lowest rating was red/unacceptable.[4]  Id. at 66.  On January 29, the agency received 12 proposals.  AR, Tab 6c, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 2.  CBAIA’s proposal, specifically sections 1.2-1 and 1.8.4, mentioned some of the programs in the PdM MC2S portfolio, but did not specifically address inter-dependencies or inter-relationships of the PdM MC2S portfolio.  AR, Tab 8, CBAIA Proposal, at 6-8, 29-32. [5] The technical evaluation review panel (TERP) assessed a deficiency for CBAIA’s management approach because it did not address the inter-dependencies/inter-relationships of the programs with PdM MC2S’s portfolio.  AR, Tab 6a, TERP Report, at 3.  As a result, CBAIA’s proposal received a technical risk rating of red/unacceptable.  Id.