Automation Precision Technology, LLC

B-416078 Jun 05, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Automation Precision Technology, LLC (APT), of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Noble Supply and Logistics, of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-17-R-0026, issued by the Department of the Navy, for a contractor to operate three parts and repair stores. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Noble's staffing plan and failed to provide APT with meaningful discussions. 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:  Automation Precision Technology, LLC File:  B-416078 Date:  June 5, 2018 Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., and Blake Christopher, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for the protester. Gary J. Campbell, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Joshua L. Rodman, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for Noble Supply and Logistics, the intervenor. Andrew N. Christopher, Esq., and James E. Vaiden, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee should not have been rated outstanding under the technical factor is denied where agency recognized a weakness in the awardee's staffing plan for failure to identify the number of full-time equivalent personnel that would perform, but this was just one element of the technical factor and agency also identified numerous strengths in the awardee's technical proposal. DECISION Automation Precision Technology, LLC (APT), of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Noble Supply and Logistics, of Rockland, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-17-R-0026, issued by the Department of the Navy, for a contractor to operate three parts and repair stores.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Noble's staffing plan and failed to provide APT with meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued for a contractor to operate three parts and repairs stores in support of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic Public Works Department.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP (conformed) at 67.  The contractor will be required to provide all labor, supplies, equipment, management supervision, and support necessary to maintain an adequate supply of all parts, materials, and equipment to accomplish the agency's needs.  Id.  The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 102-106.  In making the award decision, the technical factor was more important than past performance and those two factors were more important than price.  Id. at 102. The solicitation provided that in evaluating the technical factor, the agency would consider an offeror's performance approach; management approach, including staffing plan and compliance with country of origin requirements; interface ability with a specific software; transition plan; and risk mitigation techniques.  Id. at 103.  As relevant to this protest, with regard to management approach, the solicitation instructed offerors to demonstrate how they would successfully accomplish the solicitation requirements, and clearly describe the management controls, techniques, and procedures that would be used to ensure that performance was timely, responsive, professional, and efficient.  Id. at 99.  Offerors were required to include a staffing plan that demonstrated the capability to provide personnel with the necessary skill sets and certifications.  Id. Three offerors, including APT and Noble, responded to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 4.  Following the evaluation of initial proposals, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, APT and Noble were rated as follows:   Factor Noble APT Technical Outstanding Outstanding Past Performance SatisfactoryConfidence SatisfactoryConfidence Total Evaluated Price $28,788,339 $37,628,210 Protest, Exh. 1, Debriefing, at 2.[1]  The agency performed a best-value tradeoff and concluded that the proposals of Noble and APT were essentially equal under the non-price factors and selected Noble for award based on its lower proposed price.  AR,  Exh.