Valkyrie Enterprises, LLC

B-414516 Jun 30, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Valkyrie Enterprises, LLC, a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00023-15-R-3550, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering and logistics-support services for naval surveillance radar at Virginia Beach, Virginia. Valkyrie contends that the agency erred in finding its proposal unacceptable and eliminating it from the competition without first seeking clarifications, and, furthermore, that its proposal was acceptable on its face at the time of evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Valkyrie Enterprises, LLC File:  B-414516 Date:  June 30, 2017 J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Beth V. McMahon, Esq., Reaves, Coley, PLLC, for the protester. Marvin D. Rampey, Esq., and John M. Davis, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency was required to seek clarification before rejecting the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency was under no obligation to seek clarifications regarding the protester's failure to submit an accurate resume for key personnel. DECISION Valkyrie Enterprises, LLC, a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00023-15-R-3550, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering and logistics-support services for naval surveillance radar at Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Valkyrie contends that the agency erred in finding its proposal unacceptable and eliminating it from the competition without first seeking clarifications, and, furthermore, that its proposal was acceptable on its face at the time of evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on March 10, 2016, with a closing date of April 22, 2016.  Agency Report at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order under the Navy's Seaport-Enhanced indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple-award contract.  Id.  The contemplated task order would have a base period of performance of 1-year and four 1-year options, and an estimated value of $205,237,680 (inclusive of option years).[1]  Id. The solicitation indicated that offers would be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  (1) technical and management; (2) past performance; and (3) total evaluated cost.  RFP at 94.  Additionally, the first factor was further subdivided into three sub-factors:  (1) plan to accomplish; (2) personnel qualifications and experience; and (3) transition plan.  Id.  The solicitation noted that an unacceptable rating in any one factor or subfactor would render a proposal ineligible for award.  Id.  Further, the solicitation indicated that a factor or subfactor would be rated as unacceptable if the relevant portion of the proposal did not meet the solicitation's requirements and contained one or more deficiencies, defining a deficiency as a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.  RFP at 95. Of particular relevance to this protest, the solicitation provided that the personnel qualifications and experience subfactor would be evaluated by assessing the resumes submitted to determine how well the offeror has demonstrated the individual's qualifications and capabilities, level of relevant education and training, and the depth of relevant experience working on similar requirements.  Id. at 96.  With respect to relevant experience, the solicitation required that various positions be filled by personnel with a specified minimum number of years of relevant experience.  Id. at 19-22.  For example, the solicitation required that the proposed senior acquisition manager (SAM) position must have 12 years of experience in acquisition management associated with combat systems.  Id. at 20. The solicitation indicated that the government did not intend to hold discussions, but reserved the agency's right to request clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(a).  RFP at 78.  However, the solicitation provided that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award a task order based upon initial proposals, and that, therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain its best terms from both a price and a technical standpoint.  Id.