Millennium Corporation, Inc.

B-416485.2 Oct 01, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Millennium Corporation, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0039, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, for program management technical support services. Millennium contends that the Navy's evaluation of the offeror's proposal and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  Millennium Corporation, Inc. File:  B-416485.2 Date:  October 1, 2018 Milton C. Johns, Esq., and Rachel Leahey, Esq., Fluet Huber & Hoang PLLC, for the protester. Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Charles L. Capito, Esq., and Lauren J. Horneffer, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Precise Systems, Inc.; and Isaias “Cy” Alba, IV, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., and Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for Davis Defense Group, Inc., the intervenors. Robin Ray Coll, Esq., and Stephanie K. Polk, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal is sustained where there was a latent ambiguity in the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Millennium Corporation, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0039, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, for program management technical support services.[1]  Millennium contends that the Navy’s evaluation of the offeror’s proposal and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 23, 2017, as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under which task orders would be placed for a base year with four 1-year options.[2]  Id. at 2, 8.  In general terms, the statement of work required contractors to provide the personnel necessary to address NAVAIR’s “program[] management and acquisition support requirements throughout the entire domestic and/or foreign military acquisition and sustainment lifecycle of a weapon system program.”  Id. at 14.  The solicitation provided that award would be made to the 20 highest technically-rated offerors that offered fair and reasonable prices, and established criteria for assigning technical points with regard to the following factors:  relevant experience; past performance; and systems, certifications, and clearances.[3]  Id. at 96, 98-99.  Finally, the solicitation provided that each offeror was to self-score its proposal against the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and provide documentation with its proposal to support the points claimed.  Id. at 99-106; attach. J.5.1, Self-Scoring Worksheet, at 1-3. A total of 84 offerors, including Millennium, submitted proposals by the December 18 closing date.  Agency Dismissal Request at 3.  Following submission of proposals, the agency evaluated the documentation submitted and point scores claimed by each offeror.  With regard to Millennium, while the offeror’s self-score was 6,375 points, the agency’s evaluated score was 5,975 points.  Agency Dismissal Request at 4.  As detailed below, the 400-point reduction to Millennium’s self-score concerned the assessment of one of the offeror’s past performance references. The Navy thereafter posted a list of the awardees and disclosed that contract awards were being made to 21 offerors that had evaluated point scores ranging from 7,625 to 6,150.[4]  Based on the agency’s evaluation of Millennium’s proposal, and its deduction of the 400 points discussed above, Millennium’s proposal was not among the highest-rated offerors and was not eligible for award.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Millennium challenges the Navy’s evaluation of its proposal.  Specifically, the protester alleges that the downward adjustment to its self-score was unreasonable and not in accordance with the plain language of solicitation.  The gravamen of Millennium’s protest is that the Navy’s interpretation of the solicitation evaluation criteria was contrary to the plain language of the provision.  Millennium also argues that it was prejudiced by the alleged error and that its proposal should have been among those selected for award.  As detailed below, we find that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity and sustain the protest on that g...