PiperCoughlin LLC

B-414352.2 Apr 17, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PiperCoughlin, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to McKellar Corporation, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912L9-16-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for the Whole of Government Training Support Services and Deployment Program (WGTSSDP), which provides training support services for civil-service employees who deploy throughout the world as part of their civilian employment. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  PiperCoughlin, LLC File:  B-414352.2 Date:  April 17, 2018 Duane J. Piper, PiperCoughlin, LLC, for the protester. Major Stephen P. Smith, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Source selection authority’s (SSA) disagreement with the conclusions of the source selection evaluation board and acceptance of the conclusions of the source selection advisory council regarding the evaluation of the protester’s proposal is unobjectionable, and does not show bias, where the SSA documented reasoned conclusions concerning the evaluation of the protester’s proposal. DECISION PiperCoughlin, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to McKellar Corporation, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912L9-16-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for the Whole of Government Training Support Services and Deployment Program (WGTSSDP), which provides training support services for civil-service employees who deploy throughout the world as part of their civilian employment. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND On August 30, 2016, the agency issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. The RFP contemplated a single‑award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) service contract utilizing fixed-price services contract line item numbers (CLINs) and cost‑reimbursable CLINs for travel for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 9 and 47.  The agency issued the RFP as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB).  Id. at 61.  The agency issued three amendments to the solicitation.  The solicitation provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following non-price factors in descending order of importance:  technical approach, management approach, and past performance, which, when combined are significantly more important than price.[2]  Id. at 132-133.  The technical approach factor included two subfactors, of equal importance:  overall IDIQ approach and sample task order.  Id. at 133.  The management approach factor contained the following three subfactors in descending order of importance:  management/staffing plan, proposed personnel, and quality control plan.  Id.  The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s proposed price to ensure that it is “reasonable, realistic, complete and balanced.”  Id. at 139.  The agency received proposals from several offerors, including PiperCoughlin and McKellar, by the closing date of October 21.  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 2.  After receipt of proposals, the agency states that there was an “extended delay” in the source selection and evaluation process as the contracting officer was assigned to a different job within the National Guard but ultimately was reassigned as the contracting officer for this procurement.  Id. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB), comprised of three evaluators, evaluated proposals with regard to the non-price factors.  AR, Tab 24, SSEB Report.  The SSEB documented its adjectival rating and the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties for each factor and subfactor for each proposal.  The SSEB evaluated PiperCoughlin as outstanding under the technical approach and management approach factors, and evaluated its past performance as somewhat relevant with a performance confidence ranking of substantial confidence.[3]  AR, Tab 24, SSEB Report at 41.  The source selection advisory council (SSAC) then conducted a comparative analysis of all of the proposals and documented its findings in a written report for the source selection authority (SSA).  AR, Tab 25, SSAC Report.  The SSAC, in its analysis, determined that the SSEB had assigned unwarranted strengths and elevated ratings to many offerors in several areas and adjusted ratings accordingly.  Id. at 1.