Apogee Engineering, LLC

B-414829.2,B-414829.3 Feb 21, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Apogee Engineering, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Countermeasures Assessment and Security Experts (CASE), LLC, of New Castle, Delaware, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS5916R00023, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), for support services. Apogee, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal under the technical and past performance factors, failed to perform a reasonable price realism analysis, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 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: Apogee Engineering, LLC File: B-414829.2; B-414829.3 Date: February 21, 2019 Peter B. Ford, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Emily J. Rouleau, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Laura Wainwright, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's non-price proposal is denied where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation; however, allegation that the agency's price realism analysis was unreasonable is sustained where the record does not show that the agency considered the awardee's lower pricing in the context of the firm's technical approach. 2. Protest challenging the agency's selection decision is sustained where the record shows that the source selection authority found the proposals technically equal by simply comparing adjectival ratings without qualitatively assessing the underlying merits of the technical proposals. DECISION Apogee Engineering, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Countermeasures Assessment and Security Experts (CASE), LLC, of New Castle, Delaware, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS5916R00023, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), for support services. Apogee, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal under the technical and past performance factors, failed to perform a reasonable price realism analysis, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program, contemplated the award of a labor-hour contract with fixed-price labor rates to provide all management, supervision, and labor required to staff OST's Crisis Management Center (CMC). Agency Report (AR), Tab 2E, RFP amend. 007, at 1-2, 29.1 The RFP sought support for OST's CMC in monitoring the National Transportation System, including reporting incidents, accidents, and threats to the system's integrity. RFP at 5. The contractor will also be responsible for analyzing and assessing information related to the transportation industry. Id. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors: technical capability, staffing/resumes and proposed key personnel, corporate experience/past performance, and price. RFP at 50. The technical capability factor was more important than the staffing/resumes and proposed key personnel factor, which was more important than corporate experience/past performance. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. In their price2 proposals, offerors were required to provide their labor rates and identify the labor categories needed to perform the work. RFP at 48. The RFP set forth an estimated level of effort, but noted that offerors might deviate from this estimate as appropriate. Id. Price proposals were to be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices, and to "assess realism and probable cost" to the agency. Id. at 52. The RFP explained that the purpose of this analysis was to determine if the proposed price reasonably reflected that the offeror understood and addressed the RFP's requirements. Id. The agency received nine proposals in response to the solicitation. Combined Contracting Officer's Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL), at 4.