Tridentis LLC

B-417096,B-417096.2,B-417096.3,B-417096.4 Feb 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tridentis, LLC, a small business concern of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Tech-Marine Business, Inc. (TMB), a small business concern of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-17-R-3039, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for professional support services to assist the Amphibious Warfare Program Office. The protester challenges the agency's cost, past performance, and technical evaluations, as well as the agency's best-value tradeoff determination. 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:  Tridentis LLC File:  B-417096; B-417096.2; B-417096.3; B-417096.4 Date:  February 11, 2019 Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Meghan Doherty, Esq., Robert Starling, Esq., and Kevin R. Massoudi, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for Tech-Marine Business, Inc., the intervenor. Jeanne P. Ockerman, Esq., Mayankkumar Dixit, Esq., William Longwell, Esq., and Lana Obert, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Tridentis, LLC, a small business concern of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Tech-Marine Business, Inc. (TMB), a small business concern of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-17-R-3039, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for professional support services to assist the Amphibious Warfare Program Office.  The protester challenges the agency’s cost, past performance, and technical evaluations, as well as the agency’s best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on March 17, 2017, as a small business set-aside, seeking proposals from firms holding Seaport Enhanced (Seaport-e) Multiple Award Zone 2 (National Capital Zone) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  RFP at 2, 87;[1] Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1 n.1, 2.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) order with a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods.  RFP at 1, 68.  The RFP sought professional support services in the areas of overarching program management, administrative support, and business and financial management support to assist the Amphibious Warfare Program Office in satisfying both current and future Navy and Marine Corps needs for amphibious warfare.  Id. at 8.  The Amphibious Warfare Program Office, also known as “PMS 377,” is responsible for the following acquisition programs:  the Landing Helicopter Assault Replacement (LHA(R)) Program; the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) Program; the Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Program; the LCU Replacement Program (LCU 1700); the Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) Program; and the Amphibious Assault Direction System (AADS) Program.  Id. at 6. The RFP notified offerors that the agency would make an award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  technical capability, past performance, and cost/price.  Id. at 88, 89.  When combined, technical capability and past performance were more important than cost/price.  Id. at 89.  The RFP indicated, however, that “as competing proposals approach Technical Capability and Past Performance equality, Cost/Price will increase in importance.”  Id. The technical capability factor included three subfactors:  (a) technical capabilities and experience, (b) personnel, and (c) management.  Id. at 88.  The RFP provided that the first two subfactors were of equal importance and were each more important than the management subfactor.  Id.  Under the technical capability factor, the RFP provided that the agency would assign proposals one of the following adjectival ratings based upon an assessment of strengths and weaknesses:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, unacceptable.  Id. at 89. Under the past performance factor, the RFP provided that the agency would consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of an offeror’s past performance, and assign one of the following adjectival ratings:  substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, unknown confidence.  Id. at 90‑91.  Cost was not to be rated or scored.  Id.