DynaLantic Corporation

B-416855 Dec 26, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DynaLantic Corporation, of Ozark, Alabama, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-18-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Orlando, for the production, installation, and support of two utility helicopter (UH)-60A flight training devices (FTDs). DynaLantic protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated DynaLantic from the competitive range. 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:  DynaLantic Corporation File:  B-416855 Date:  December 26, 2018 Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., and Daniel D. Straus, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Lynn Marshall, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, 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 and its exclusion from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and where the agency reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable. DECISION DynaLantic Corporation, of Ozark, Alabama, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-18-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Orlando, for the production, installation, and support of two utility helicopter (UH)-60A flight training devices (FTDs).  DynaLantic protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated DynaLantic from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 24, 2018 as a small-business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the FTDs.  RFP at 3-8.  According to the statement of work (SOW), the contractor will be required to deliver and install the training devices, software, spares, and associated technical data, including all operating, maintenance, and manufacturer documentation.  Agency Report (AR), Tab D, SOW § 1, at 5.  In addition, the contractor is required to provide operator and maintenance training courses.  Id.  The contractor also will be required to provide two years of contractor logistics support for each FTD.[1]  Id. The RFP instructed offerors that proposals “shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated assertions.”  RFP § L.1.8, at 60.  Offerors were warned not to rephrase or rehash the requirements, but to provide detail and rationale as to how they intended to meet the requirements.  Id.  The RFP required offerors to include with their proposals an SOW compliance matrix that listed the government’s requirements, and stated whether the proposal met, did not meet, or exceeded each requirement, along with a cross reference to the proposal paragraphs where the requirement is addressed.  Id. § L.1.2.3, at 59.  The RFP stated that this matrix “will only be used by the Government for traceability of the requirements, and will not be used as an evaluation criteri[on]/factor.”  Id. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and cost/price.  RFP §§ M.1.1, M.3.1, at 75, 81.  The technical factor had three subfactors:  technical approach, management, and logistics.  Id. §§ M.3.1, M.5, at 81.  For each subfactor, proposals were rated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. § M.2.1, at 81.  Proposals had to receive a rating of acceptable or higher for each of these subfactors in order to be considered for award.  Id. §§ M.4.0, M.5.1, at 81. As relevant here, for the logistics subfactor, RFP Section L, Instructions to Offerors, required offerors to include in their proposals detailed information regarding (1) operational availability of the FTD; (2) training and training materials; and (3) technical documentation.  For operational availability, the RFP required that proposals: shall discuss, in detail, how [the offeror’s] proposed approach will provide logistics support considerations for effective system operation and maintenance. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of how the proposed design influences the system reliability and maintainability.