General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

B-416552 Oct 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Westwood, Massachusetts, protests the Department of the Army's exclusion of GDIT's proposal from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-17-R-0014 to provide training and related support services for the Army Intelligence Center of Excellence (ICoE) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Among other things, GDIT asserts that the agency improperly identified multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT's proposal. 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:  General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. File:  B-416552 Date:  October 12, 2018 Michael D. McGill, Esq., Christine Reynolds, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Jeffery D. Pedersen, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably excluded protester’s proposal from the competitive range where the agency evaluated the proposal as containing multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses under the most important evaluation factor. DECISION General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Westwood, Massachusetts, protests the Department of the Army’s exclusion of GDIT’s proposal from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-17-R-0014 to provide training and related support services for the Army Intelligence Center of Excellence (ICoE) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.[1]  Among other things, GDIT asserts that the agency improperly identified multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In August 2017, the agency issued RFP No. W900KK-17-R-0014, seeking proposals for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide services in the areas of training, training development, and training support for the ICoE and its organizational elements located primarily at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. [2]  The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, and established the following evaluation factors:  program management, small business participation, past  performance, and cost/price.  The solicitation provided that the non-cost/price factors were significantly more important than cost/price, and that the program management factor was “significantly more important than the other non-cost/price factors combined.”  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 81.  The solicitation further provided that, in evaluating the program management factor, the agency would assign ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable[3]--and stated that, to be considered for award, a proposal “must achieve a rating of ACCEPTABLE (or better)” under this most important factor.[4]  Id. at 81.  Finally, the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to make award without discussions, but also provided notice that the agency retained the discretion to establish a competitive range and to, thereafter, conduct discussions.  Id.  On or before the closing date, proposals were submitted by several offerors, including GDIT.  In its evaluation under the program management factor, the agency assessed multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses in GDIT’s proposal.[5]  Among other things, the agency concluded that GDIT’s proposal was flawed with regard to its staffing structure and key personnel; its task order modification procedures; its approach to the solicitation’s program flexibility requirements; its approach to the solicitation’s other-than-normal working hours requirements; and its transition plan.  AR, Tab 3, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 15-33.  Accordingly, with regard to the program management factor--which the solicitation stated was significantly more important than all of the other non-cost/price factors combined--the agency concluded that GDIT’s proposal “has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is high.”  Id.