Rollout Systems, LLC

B-414145 Feb 24, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rollout Systems, LLC, a small business located in California, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (RMC), of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-15-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), for technical management and support services. Rollout challenges the Navy's evaluation of RMC's technical proposal, cost proposal, and past performance, and argues that the best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. 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:  Rollout Systems, LLC File:  B-414145 Date:  February 24, 2017 Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., and Christian F. Henel, Esq., Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, for the protester. Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for Resource Management Concepts, Inc., the intervenor. Stephanie J. Quade, Esq., and Michael Genchi, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency’s evaluation of the realism of the awardee’s proposed cost was unreasonable is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and supported by the record. 2.  Protest that the agency conducted an improper evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the record reflects that the agency reasonably assessed the relevance of the past performance as required by the solicitation. DECISION Rollout Systems, LLC, a small business located in California, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (RMC), of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-15-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), for technical management and support services.  Rollout challenges the Navy’s evaluation of RMC’s technical proposal, cost proposal, and past performance, and argues that the best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 23, 2016, the Navy issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside for technical and management support services for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Infrastructure Division of NAWCAD.  The solicitation anticipated a cost-plus-fixed-fee,[1] level-of-effort, single‑award, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, for a 5-year period of performance.  RFP at 2.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis considering the following factors, in descending order of importance:  technical, past performance and cost/price.  Id. at 96-97.  The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  In addition, the solicitation explained that “[c]ost/price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offerors’ non-cost factors.”  Id. The RFP also identified three subfactors under the technical factor:  understanding and approach; staffing and personnel; and management and transition plan.  The solicitation explained that “[f]or all technical factors/subfactors, a combined technical rating/technical risk rating will be assigned” to reflect “the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements.”  Id. With regard to past performance, the solicitation provided that past performance would be evaluated “to determine how relevant prior efforts accomplished by the offeror are to the solicitation requirements,” and then a “Performance Confidence Assessment Rating” would be assigned based on the agency’s “level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the offeror’s . . .