McKean Defense Group, LLC

B-415254.2 Dec 19, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights McKean Defense Group, LLC, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Gryphon Technologies, L.C., of Washington, District of Columbia, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3030 for engineering support services. McKean contends that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable cost realism analysis, performed a flawed best-value tradeoff determination, and failed to conduct a reasonable technical evaluation of proposals. 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:  McKean Defense Group, LLC File:  B-415254.2 Date:  December 19, 2017 J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Beth V. McMahon, Esq., ReavesColey, PLLC, for the protester. Richard J. Conway, Esq., and Philip E. Beshara, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Gryphon Technologies, L.C., the intervenor. Ryan Banach, Esq., William A. Longwell, Esq., and Jeanne P. Ockerman, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency’s cost realism analysis was unreasonable because the agency did not utilize an independent government cost estimate in its analysis is denied where the record shows that the cost evaluators relied on other cost analysis techniques permitted by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the cost analysis was otherwise reasonable. 2.  Protest that the best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable and insufficiently documented is denied where the record shows that the tradeoff decision was reasonable and adequately documented, and where despite one apparent evaluation error, the protester could not show that it was prejudiced. DECISION McKean Defense Group, LLC, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Gryphon Technologies, L.C., of Washington, District of Columbia, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3030 for engineering support services.  McKean contends that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable cost realism analysis, performed a flawed best-value tradeoff determination, and failed to conduct a reasonable technical evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 27, 2016, sought proposals for the provision of engineering, technical and programmatic services in support of NAVSEA’s Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program (SURFMEPP).[1]  MOL at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single cost-reimbursement task order, utilizing the multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts[2] under the Navy’s SeaPort-e program.[3]  MOL at 1; RFP at 138.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three evaluation factors:  technical capability and experience (“technical capability”); past performance; and cost.  RFP at 139.  Technical capability was considered to be more important than past performance, and both non-cost factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than cost.  Id. at 140.  However, the solicitation instructed offerors that “as competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality, the Total Evaluated Cost will increase in importance.”  Id.  The technical capability factor included four subfactors listed in descending order of importance:  technical capability and experience, key personnel, staffing plan, and management plan.  Id.