ACG Systems Inc

B-413419.3 Oct 28, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACG Systems Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-13-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Navy, for command and control commercial-off-the-shelf equipment, software and hardware licenses, maintenance associated with equipment, and renewals for software and hardware licenses, maintenance, and warranties. ACG argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the solicitation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  ACG Systems Inc. File:  B-413419.3 Date:  October 28, 2016 Timothy J. Carney, ACG Systems, Inc., for the protester. Mark S. Christopher, Esq., and D. Randall Kemplin, Esq., Department of the Navy,  for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION ACG Systems Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-13-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Navy, for command and control commercial-off-the-shelf equipment, software and hardware licenses, maintenance associated with equipment, and renewals for software and hardware licenses, maintenance, and warranties.  ACG argues that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on January 8, 2015, as an unrestricted solicitation for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, and reserved the right to make a single or multiple awards.  RFP at 32.  The solicitation contemplated award for a term of 1 year with four 1-year options, on a best-value basis, considering price and the following evaluation factors:  reseller relationships/agreements; technical capability; past performance; and small business participation.  Id. at 80-84.  The value of the contracts was not to exceed $750 million.  Id. at 7.  With respect to the technical capability factor, the RFP stated that the evaluation would assess the offerors’ depth of experience, that is, “the frequency in which an offeror has completed same or similar tasks across the range of tasks within the element,” and the offerors’ breadth of experience, that is, “the multiplicity or variety of programs and/or projects an [offeror] has completed [the] same or similar tasks and the range of tasks within the element.”  RFP at 119.  As relevant to this protest, the technical capability factor had two subfactors:  systems and equipment, and technical support services.  Id.  The technical support services subfactor required offerors to demonstrate experience in performing in two areas:  maintenance, overhaul, troubleshooting and repair of systems or equipment; and configuration, integration, packaging, kitting and installing the equipment.  Id. at 130.  To evaluate proposals under the technical capability factor, the proposal preparation instructions in the RFP required offerors to submit reference information sheets, which allowed offerors to use up to four additional pages to provide amplifying information for each contract reference.  RFP at 129.  Under the agency’s evaluation scheme, the reseller relationships/agreements factor is more important than the technical capability factor, and within the technical capability factor, the systems and equipment subfactor is more important than the technical support services subfactor.  Id. at 117-119.  The RFP advised offerors that proposals “shall be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete to demonstrate clearly and fully that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for, and technical problems inherent in, the requirements of the solicitation.”  RFP at 127.  The RFP further advised offerors that organization, clarity, accuracy of information, relevance, and completeness are of prime importance.  Id.  Statements such as “will comply” or “noted and understood,” or responses that merely reiterate solicitation language, without “supporting narrative to define compliance,” will not satisfy the RFP requirements.  Id.  The RFP cautioned offerors that proposals “must address the full scope of requirements as set forth in Sections L and M of the solicitation.  Proposals which fail to address the stated requirements will be considered unacceptable.”  Id.