Spinnaker JV, LLC

B-416688 Nov 21, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Spinnaker JV, LLC (Spinnaker), a small business of Orlando, Florida, protests the award of multiple contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6134017R0042, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), for a broad range of training systems products. Spinnaker challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the corporate experience and past performance factors. 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:  Spinnaker JV, LLC File:  B-416688 Date:  November 21, 2018 John M. Manfredonia, Esq., Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Anna M. Lashley, Esq., and Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the intervenor. Sharon H. Sachs, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of protester's proposal under corporate experience and past performance evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Spinnaker JV, LLC (Spinnaker), a small business of Orlando, Florida, protests the award of multiple contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6134017R0042, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), for a broad range of training systems products.[1]  Spinnaker challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the corporate experience and past performance factors. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on August 28, 2017, seeking proposals for multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15.  The requirement is also referred to as the Training Systems Contract IV (TSC IV) solicitation.  The solicitation contemplated the award of approximately 15 IDIQ contracts with a 9-year ordering period and maximum value of $980 million. [2]  AR, Tab 1A, RFP at 95;Combined Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5.  The TSC program objective is to establish a long-term contract vehicle to support NAWCTSD's product line, which includes the design, development, production, test and evaluation, delivery, modification, and initial support of training systems.  Id. at 4.  Potential delivery orders "may include new training systems, modifications and upgrades to existing training systems, complementary Instructional Systems Development (ISD), and complementary Training Systems Support."  RFP at 19.  The RFP provided that awards were to be made to offerors whose proposals provided the best value to the government, which was defined by the RFP as "the most highly rated proposals in the Corporate Experience and Past Performance Factors and a Price determined to be fair and reasonable."  Id. at 95.  Under the RFP, the government was to make a best-value award decision using a two-step process.  Id.  In the first step, the government would consider the proposals submitted by small businesses and make up to ten awards.  Id.  For a small business to be considered for award in the first step, its corporate experience and past performance proposals must have received a rating of satisfactory confidence or higher.  Id.  In the second step, the government would consider all remaining offerors, without regard to size status, to make additional awards.  Id.  Any small business not selected for an award during the first step, would be considered during the second step.[3]  Id.  Proposals were to be evaluated based on the following factors listed in descending order of importance: corporate experience, past performance, and price.  Id. at 96.  Under the corporate experience factor, the RFP provided that offerors would be evaluated based on contracts deemed recent and relevant in the past performance evaluation.  Id.  Using these contract references, the agency would determine the similarity between an offeror's corporate experience and the future effort contemplated by the RFP.  Id.  Specifically, the RFP stated the agency would evaluate the breadth and depth of an offeror's corporate experience under the following elements:  systems integration, software engineering, information operations, and sustainment/logistics planning.  Id.