Grove Resource Solutions, Inc.

B-414746.2 Apr 04, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Grove Resource Solutions, Inc. (GRSi), a small business located in Frederick, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Vickers & Nolan Enterprises, LLC (VNE), a small business located in Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-17-R-3067, issued by the Department of the Navy for intelligence support services for the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The protester argues that the agency impermissibly permitted VNE to change the composition of its proposed team during discussions, failed to assess the technical risks resulting from that change, improperly evaluated GRSi's technical capability, and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Grove Resource Solutions, Inc. File:  B-414746.2 Date:  April 4, 2018 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., and Todd M. Garland, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Vickers & Nolan Enterprises, LLC, the intervenor. Mark S. Christopher, Esq., and David D. Perrone, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s acceptance of revisions to the awardee’s proposal, which removed a subcontractor from the awardee’s cost/price proposal, is denied where the agency did not limit the scope of final proposal revisions. 2.  Protest alleging that agency failed to evaluate the technical risks resulting from the awardee’s final proposal revision, which removed a proposed subcontractor, is denied where the solicitation did not call for the evaluation of offerors’ technical approaches, and where the hours proposed for that subcontractor did not exceed the threshold provided in the solicitation for the evaluation of subcontractor corporate experience.  3.  Protest challenging the agency’s failure to consider protester’s incumbent corporate experience is denied where the protester did not include such information in its proposal. DECISION Grove Resource Solutions, Inc. (GRSi), a small business located in Frederick, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Vickers & Nolan Enterprises, LLC (VNE), a small business located in Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-17-R-3067, issued by the Department of the Navy for intelligence support services for the United States Marine Corps (USMC).  The protester argues that the agency impermissibly permitted VNE to change the composition of its proposed team during discussions, failed to assess the technical risks resulting from that change, improperly evaluated GRSi’s technical capability, and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, which was issued on December 13, 2016, as a small business set-aside, contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), level of effort task order under the Navy’s SeaPort-e contract for intelligence support services for the USMC.  Such services include the design, development, testing, deployment and sustainment of the USMC intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enterprise (MCISR-E) for operation and sustainment of USMC program of record intelligence systems.  RFP at 7.[1]  The requirement also includes content management, architecture design utilizing external sources (national and tactical assets), information assurance, and data sharing implementation across MCISR-E.  Id. at 7-8. The RFP contemplated the evaluation of three factors:  technical capability, past performance, and cost/price.  Id. at 82.  Of these factors, past performance was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and technical capability was of significantly greater importance than cost.  Id. The solicitation anticipated that the agency would assess offerors’ technical capability based on their corporate experience performing relevant work.  Id.[2]  The RFP provided that the more relevant the work performed was to the instant requirement, the more valuable it would be considered by the agency.  Id.  In connection with the evaluation of technical capability, offerors were instructed to provide reference information sheets for no more than five current and relevant contracts, with the total proposal section to encompass no more than 15 pages.  Id.