ARP Sciences, LLC

B-415318.4 Feb 07, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARP Sciences, LLC, a small business, of Rockville, Maryland, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of the Army reimburse it for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing a protest of the award of a contract to SNA International, LLC (SNA), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81XWH-16-R-0021, for scientific, technical, administrative, and logistical support services. We deny the request. We deny the request. 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: ARP Sciences, LLC File: B-415318.4 Date: February 7, 2019 Michael D. McGill, Esq., Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Christine Reynolds, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Frank A. March, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reimbursement of protest costs is denied where the initial protest grounds were not clearly meritorious and where the agency took prompt corrective action in response to the second supplemental protest. DECISION ARP Sciences, LLC, a small business, of Rockville, Maryland, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of the Army reimburse it for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing a protest of the award of a contract to SNA International, LLC (SNA), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81XWH-16-R-0021, for scientific, technical, administrative, and logistical support services. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 20, 2016 as a set-aside for small businesses, provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for scientific, technical, administrative, and logistical support services for the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES).1 AR, Tab 3, RFP, at 2; Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering, in descending order of importance: management capabilities, experience, technical approach, past performance, and cost/price. RFP at 80. The Army received four proposals by the deadline for receipt of proposals. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Only two proposals, those of ARP Sciences and SNA, were included in the competitive range. Id. After discussions were conducted and the source selection evaluation board evaluated final proposal revisions, the source selection authority (SSA) prepared a draft selection decision in which ARP Sciences was selected for award. AR, Tab 38, Decl. of SSA, at 1. The SSA's draft decision was subject to peer review pursuant to Army guidance.2 Id. After receiving input from the peer reviewers, the SSA reconsidered her decision and selected SNA's proposal as presenting the best value to the government. Id. at 3. On September 14, 2017, the Army awarded the contract to SNA. On September 21, ARP Sciences filed a protest with our Office challenging the evaluation of its and SNA's proposals under the management capabilities, experience, and technical approach factors. Protest (B-415318). More specifically, ARP Sciences argued that: (1) the Army unreasonably assigned a weakness to ARP Sciences' proposal under the management capabilities factor and should have assigned its proposal an outstanding rating; (2) the Army unreasonably assigned ARP Sciences' proposal a good instead of an outstanding rating under the experience factor, given that it is the incumbent; (3) the Army failed to consider SNA's lack of experience; (4) the Army unreasonably assigned two weaknesses to ARP Sciences' proposal under the technical approach factor, and failed to assign it the outstanding rating it deserved; (5) the Army failed to conduct meaningful discussions; and (6) the Army unreasonably concluded that SNA's proposal presented the best value to the government because of flaws in the underlying technical evaluation, and a failure to fully consider ARP Sciences' lower price. Id. at 13-26. Additionally, ARP Sciences asserted that, one week prior to the award announcement, the Defense Contract Audit Agency informed it that ARP Sciences was the awardee, which the protester contended suggested that the Army unreasonably reversed its award decision by awarding to SNA. Id. at 26-27. On October 2, ARP Sciences filed a supplemental protest arguing that SNA was ineligible for award because SNA failed to satisfy the RFP requirement for a program manager, and that the Army failed to consider the risks inherent in SNA's plan to hire the incumbent staff. Supp. Protest, Oct.