LCLC Inc/CfMRF

B-414357 May 22, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LCLC, Inc., d/b/a Center for Military Relationships and Families (LCLC), of Seattle, Washington, challenges the award of a contract to TechWerks, LLC, of Arlington Heights, Illinois, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command, under solicitation No. H92240-16-T-0084, for a resilience program. The protester challenges the evaluation of TechWerks's technical proposal and the selection decision. 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:  LCLC Inc/CfMRF File:  B-414357 Date:  May 22, 2017 Lisa Marchese, Esq., Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq., and Kate Kennedy, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester. Frank S. Murray, Esq., David T. Ralston, Esq., Micah Tal Zomer, Esq., and Alexandra Kitson, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for TechWerks, LLC, an intervenor. Col. C. Taylor Smith, Capt. Ryan P. Payne, Corey Lastinger, Esq., and Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, on behalf of the Naval Special Warfare Command, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging selection of lower-rated, lower-priced proposal is denied where the source selection authority considered the technical differences between the two offerors’ proposals but determined that the superiority of the higher-rated, higher-priced proposal was not worth paying the associated price premium. DECISION LCLC, Inc., d/b/a Center for Military Relationships and Families (LCLC), of Seattle, Washington, challenges the award of a contract to TechWerks, LLC, of Arlington Heights, Illinois, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command, under solicitation No. H92240-16-T-0084, for a resilience program.  The protester challenges the evaluation of TechWerks’s technical proposal and the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on August 22, 2016, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13.  See Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Notice.  The solicitation, as amended, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) type contract with fixed-priced exhibit line item numbers for resilience program offerings for the NSW community services members.[1]  See Solicitation, Performance Work Statement (PWS); id., amend. 0003, at 2-4, 6.[2]  The ordering period for the contract was to be up to five years or until the $6.5 million contract ceiling was reached.  Id., amend. 0003, at 6.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two factors:  technical capability and price.  Solicitation at 5.  The technical capability factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors:  corporate experience and key personnel experience.  Id.  The solicitation stated that the technical capability factor was significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. at 10.  As relevant here, the solicitation stated that under the corporate experience subfactor, the agency would evaluate the extent to which:  the offeror’s corporate experience is recent and relevant; the offeror has established relationships with leading subject matter expert (SME) speakers/presenters in topics pertinent to military resiliency; and the offeror’s experience and established relationships indicate the probability of successful performance.  Id. at 9.  Similarly, the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s key personnel experience is recent and relevant, and the extent to which the experience indicates the probability of successful performance.  Id.  For both subfactors, the solicitation stated that relevant experience was defined as “similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to services required by this solicitation.”  Id. at 10.  The agency received seven timely-submitted proposals, including those from LCLC and TechWerks.  AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 1.  A source selection team was convened to evaluate the proposals.  Id. at 3.  The evaluation of the offerors’ proposals under each factor and subfactor was discussed in detail in the SSDD, including the evaluations of the technical evaluators.  See, e.g., id.