TRAX International Corporation

B-416927 Jan 09, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TRAX International Corporation, of Las Vegas, Nevada, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-18-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, for mission support services at White Sands Missile Range. TRAX argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition. 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: TRAX International Corporation File: B-416927 Date: January 9, 2019 Amy L. O'Sullivan, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Robert Sneckenberg, Esq., James Peyster, Esq., and Stephanie L. Crawford, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Scott N. Flesch, Esq. Captain Harry M. Parent, and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging firm's elimination from the competitive range is denied where record shows that agency reasonably found the firm's proposal technically unacceptable in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION TRAX International Corporation, of Las Vegas, Nevada, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-18-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, for mission support services at White Sands Missile Range. TRAX argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement, and fixed-price, type contract for a 90-day phase-in period, a 9-month base period and four 1-year options to provide mission support services at the White Sands Missile Range, considering evaluated cost/price, along with several non-cost/price evaluation factors. The non-cost/price factors were: mission capability; past performance; and small business participation. RFP at 82-83.1 The mission capability factor had four subfactors: program management; cost management; recruitment and retention of technical expertise; and continuity of operations. Id. Firms were advised that the mission capability factor was deemed significantly more important than past performance (with the subfactors under that factor listed in descending order of importance); past performance and small business participation were deemed equal in importance; and all non-cost factors in combination were deemed significantly more important than cost. Id. at 83. For purposes of evaluating cost/price, the RFP advised that the agency would evaluate proposals for realism, reasonableness and balance. RFP at 89. In addition to these evaluation considerations, and as relevant to the protest, the RFP also provided offerors with a staffing matrix that identified all of the labor categories to be staffed during performance, and also stipulated the number of hours for each labor category. RFP, exh. T. The agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation, including the proposal submitted by TRAX, the incumbent contractor for this requirement. The agency performed an initial evaluation of the firm's proposal and, after the technical and cost evaluators compared their evaluation results, the agency concluded that TRAX appeared to be offering to retain 100 percent of the incumbent workforce for the requirement, but was proposing that its workforce be comprised of [deleted] percent part-time or temporary workers, and [deleted] percent full-time workers, which was a significant departure from how TRAX had staffed the incumbent contract. Because the agency wanted to ensure that it fully understood the TRAX proposal, the agency sent a series of clarification letters that included questions about how TRAX intended to staff the requirement and the impact of that decision on fringe benefits that would be available for proposed part-time or temporary employees, as well as the firm's use of overtime in connection with performance of the requirement. Specifically, the agency asked questions concerning the accrual of paid vacation time, paid sick leave and the firm's proposed use of overtime to meet solicitation requirements. AR, exhs. 32-34. In response to the agency's requests, TRAX clarified its proposal through the submission of a series of letters. AR, exhs. 35-37.