U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc.

B-414678 Aug 01, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc. (USEI), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Brewster, Washington, protests the decision not to award USEI a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. QTA0015SDA4003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for complex commercial satellite communication service solutions. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its price proposal using unstated evaluation criteria and performed a disparate and unequal evaluation. The protester further contends that the source selection authority (SSA) failed to exercise independent judgment and perform a comparative assessment during source selection, in violation of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.308. 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:  U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc. File:  B-414678 Date:  August 1, 2017 J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., and John A. Howell, Esq., Halloran & Sage LLP, for the protester. Andrew E. Shipley, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Intelsat General Corporation; Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Signal Mountain Networks, Inc., the intervenors. Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., and Christine L. Krell, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 challenging the agency's price evaluation and source selection decision is denied where the agency evaluated price proposals and made its source selection decision in accordance with the solicitation and procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc. (USEI), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Brewster, Washington, protests the decision not to award USEI a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. QTA0015SDA4003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for complex commercial satellite communication service solutions.  The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its price proposal using unstated evaluation criteria and performed a disparate and unequal evaluation.  The protester further contends that the source selection authority (SSA) failed to exercise independent judgment and perform a comparative assessment during source selection, in violation of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.308. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 29, 2015, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) fixed-price contracts with a potential 10.5 year period of performance, consisting of a 5-year base period, a 3-year first option period, a 2-year second option period, and a 6-month option period authorized by FAR clause 52.217-8.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at B-2 to B-4.  The agency issued the solicitation as a follow-on procurement to provide contract vehicles for complex commercial satellite communications services for the Federal government, including the Department of Defense and civilian agencies.[2]  COS at 1.  Offerors were required to submit five proposal volumes:  (1) general; (2) technical; (3) past performance; (4) management; and (5) price.  RFP at L-10.  Each offeror was required to provide a technical proposal illustrating its approach to satisfying the requirements of the following three sample task orders:  (1) contingency satellite communications system and services; (2) environmental data network; and (3) base communications network for Ouargla, Algeria.  Id. at L-17.  Offerors were required to propose fixed prices for only the first two sample tasks.  Id. at L-21.  For each of these sample tasks, the RFP required offerors to complete an Excel spreadsheet providing cost detail worksheets; the RFP was amended to also require, during final proposal revisions, a narrative providing a detailed basis of estimate that identified individual cost elements and how they add up to the overall system price.  Id. at L-22; see also RFP § J, attachs.