Roco Rescue, Inc.

B-416382 Aug 09, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Roco Rescue, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Tribalco, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8629-17-R-5003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for tactical recovery kits. Roco, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted inadequate discussions. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Roco Rescue, Inc. File:  B-416382 Date:  August 9, 2018 Carlton Jones, Esq., Jones Legal, LLC, for the protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Jozef S. Przygrodzki, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Tribalco, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Esq., and Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations; remaining allegations concerning the adequacy of discussions need not be addressed because the record shows that the protester was not prejudiced by any errors in this regard. DECISION Roco Rescue, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Tribalco, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8629-17-R-5003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for tactical recovery kits.  Roco, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted inadequate discussions. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 11, 2017, contemplated the award of the Guardian Angel Technical Recovery (GATR) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COSF), at 2,5.  The GATR contract provides for the acquisition of technical recovery kits, which the agency explains enables its parasrescue personnel to recover isolated personnel and sensitive equipment.  Id. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) offeror, considering three factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  AR, Tab 6, RFP § M, at 2.  The technical factor was divided into two subfactors:  training and system requirements document (SRD) compliance.  Id.  The agency would assign proposals an adjectival rating of acceptable or unacceptable for each subfactor.  Id. at 3. Relevant here, the SRD compliance subfactor evaluated offerors’ ability to provide the pieces of equipment that would comprise technical recovery kits.  Id. at 4.  To be rated acceptable under the SRD subfactor, offerors were required to propose the brand name pieces of equipment delineated in the RFP.  Id.  For a subset of the items sought, offerors were permitted to propose an equivalent item, which would be evaluated by the agency to ensure compliance with the required characteristics of that item.  AR, Tab 5, RFP § L at 10.  Under the price factor, the RFP stated that, in addition to calculating a total evaluated price (TEP) for each offeror, proposals would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing.  AR, Tab 6, RFP § M, at 7.  Offerors were required to complete a price matrix with their proposed prices for each of the fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINS) contemplated by the RFP.  AR, Tab 5, RFP § L at 13. Roco and Tribalco submitted proposals in response to the RFP.  The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) performed an initial evaluation of proposals.  After being briefed on the initial evaluation results, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) decided to include both offerors in the competitive range.  COSF at 6.  The agency then entered into discussions with the firms.  Id.  On March 23, the agency issued a request for final proposal revisions (FPRs) to all of the offerors in the competitive range.  Id. at 7.  In response, all offerors timely submitted FPRs.  Id.  The agency evaluated the proposals and made award to Tribalco, at a TEP of $30,997,676, as the offeror submitting the LPTA proposal.  AR, Tab 40, Source Selection Decision Document, at 6.  The agency provided Roco with a post-award debriefing on May 2.  After submitting follow-up questions, and receiving written responses from the agency, Roco filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Roco challenges the agency’s evaluation of Tribalco’s proposal under the technical factor.  Additionally, Roco alleges that the agency failed to evaluate proposals for unbalanced pricing.  Finally, Roco alleges that the agency conducted inadequate discussions.