QED Systems, LLC

B-417090.2,B-417090.3 Jul 23, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights QED Systems, LLC (QED), a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Vectrus Mission Solutions Corporation (Vectrus), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-17-0018, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, for operational and maintenance information technology for United States Forces-Afghanistan. The protester contends that the Army's cost realism analysis is flawed and the best-value tradeoff decision is unreasonable. 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:  QED Systems, LLC File:  B-417090.2; B-417090.3 Date:  July 23, 2019 Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., and Haley E. Claxton, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Steven M. Masiello, Esq., Joseph G. Martinez, Esq., and K. Tyler Thomas, Esq., Dentons US LLP, for Vectrus Mission Solutions Corporation, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and William J. Wrabley III, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation and source selection decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION QED Systems, LLC (QED), a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Vectrus Mission Solutions Corporation (Vectrus), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-17-0018, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, for operational and maintenance information technology for United States Forces-Afghanistan.  The protester contends that the Army’s cost realism analysis is flawed and the best-value tradeoff decision is unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on May 24, 2018, to holders of the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity  (IDIQ) contracts to provide command, control, communications, and computer information technology services.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.  The task order competition was conducted using the procedures at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP, at 17.  The RFP contemplated award of a hybrid fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-reimbursement task order with a period of performance that includes a 30-day phase-in period, a 12-month base period, and four 12-month option periods.  Id. at 1, 8.  The task order will be performed in various locations in Afghanistan and Kuwait and requires that all personnel have at least a secret-level security clearance.  AR, Tab 35, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 3, 7. Offerors’ technical proposals were to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable in each of the following technical criteria:  (1) manpower, (2) transition-in plan, (3) corporate experience, (4) management plan, and (5) quality assurance surveillance plan.  RFP  at 16.  For the sixth technical criterion, technical approach, proposals were to be evaluated and assigned the following ratings:  outstanding, good, acceptable, and unacceptable.  Id.  Offerors were also to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable for the small business contracting plan.  Id. at 17. To be considered for award, a proposal was required to receive a rating of no less than acceptable for each technical factor and the small business participation plan.  Id. at 15.  Award was to be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the technical approach and cost/price factors, where the technical approach factor was more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. As relevant here, for the cost/price factor, the solicitation set forth specific labor categories, the associated Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor category, the security requirements and location for the position, as well as the outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) labor hours for the position.  AR, Tab 6, RFP attach.