ACLC, LLC

B-417141 Mar 05, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACLC, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to 1Prospect Technologies, LLC (1Prospect), an 8(a) small business of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92239-18-R-0011, issued by the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Army), for medical training and support services at the Joint Special Operations Medical Training Center (JSOMTC). ACLC, the incumbent contractor, primarily challenges the agency's evaluation of 1Prospect's proposal under the RFP's past and present performance factor, as well as the Army's best-value tradeoff determination. 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:  ACLC, LLC File:  B-417141 Date:  March 5, 2019 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Bret C. Marfut, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., and Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for  1Prospect Technologies LLC, the intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith and Lieutenant Colonel Ryan Lambrecht, Department of the  Air Force, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an evaluation of past performance, as well as the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ACLC, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to 1Prospect Technologies, LLC (1Prospect), an 8(a) small business of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92239-18-R-0011, issued by the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Army), for medical training and support services at the Joint Special Operations Medical Training Center (JSOMTC).  ACLC, the incumbent contractor, primarily challenges the agency’s evaluation of 1Prospect’s proposal under the RFP’s past and present performance factor, as well as the Army’s best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 24, 2018, the Army issued the RFP as an 8(a) set-aside, pursuant to the procedures contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for medical training and support services at JSOMTC.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, RFP at 1, 65, 81.  Specifically, the agency sought to award a contract to provide qualified instructors to teach basic and advanced operational medicine to special operations medic students, across a variety of medical and trauma-related disciplines.  AR, Tab 10, RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 18-19.  The PWS also stated that offerors would provide program management, and instruction management and support.  PWS at 41-44.  The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a cost-reimbursable line item for travel, for a 60-day phase-in, a 10-month base period, and four 1-year option periods.  PWS at 20; RFP at 79.  The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, taking into consideration the following factors:  (1) technical knowledge of operational medical training; (2) staffing, retention, and management of personnel; (3) past and present performance; and (4) price.[1]  RFP at 90-91.  The solicitation provided that the two technical factors were equally important, the technical factors were more important than past and present performance and price, and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  RFP at 91. As relevant to this protest, under the past and present performance factor, offerors were required to submit between three and five recent and relevant contracts that demonstrated the offeror’s ability to perform the JSOMTC contract.  RFP at 87.  Under this factor, proposals would be evaluated for recency and relevancy.  Id.  The RFP included two separate definitions for relevancy, one for prime contractors and one for subcontractors/teaming partners.  RFP at 87-88.  Past and present performance references would be assigned one of the following relevancy ratings:  very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.  RFP at 88.  Following an evaluation of an offeror’s performance history--based on the data gathered from information sheets, questionnaires, interviews, and Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System reports--proposals would then be assigned a performance confidence assessment.  RFP at 93.  The highest rating for the performance confidence assessment was substantial confidence, reserved for proposals where the agency “has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required...