Watershed Security, LLC

B-417178.4,B-417178.6 Jul 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Watershed Security, LLC, a small business of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Stratascor, LLC d/b/a/ StratasCorp Technologies, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220518R1015 for command, control, communications, and computers (C4) Afloat Operations and sustainment support. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation under the past performance and technical factors, and argues that the agency's source selection decision was 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:  Watershed Security, LLC File:  B-417178.4; B-417178.6 Date:  July 11, 2019 William T. Welch, Esq., Johana A. Reed, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the protester. Patrick O’Donnell, Esq., Paul D. Hawkins, Esq., and Terence Murphy, Esq., Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., for Stratascor, LLC, the intervenor. Johanna Crawford, Esq., Patrick Mayette, Esq., Max Jenkins, Esq., and Kourtney Osegueda, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency misevaluated protester’s and awardee’s proposals is denied where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Watershed Security, LLC, a small business of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Stratascor, LLC d/b/a/ StratasCorp Technologies, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220518R1015 for command, control, communications, and computers (C4) Afloat Operations and sustainment support.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation under the past performance and technical factors, and argues that the agency’s source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The MSC issued the RFP on June 1, 2018, as a small business set-aside to provide C4 support services, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, for MSC’s Afloat environment and mission.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 4, 54.[1]  The solicitation’s scope of work includes tasks such as knowledge management, cybersecurity, maintenance and sustainment, modernization, equipment/asset management, MSC network operations centers, and training.  Id.  The solicitation anticipated the award of a single indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price task orders, on a best‑value tradeoff basis, for a 5-year ordering period, with a $210,000,000 contract ceiling.  Id. at 8, 81, and 89. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.  RFP at 54.  The RFP stated that the two non-price factors, technical and past performance, were of equal importance.  Id. at 54-55.  The technical factor was comprised of three subfactors:  organizational experience, staffing plan, and program management plan.  Id. at 55.  The solicitation provided that the non‑price evaluation factors when combined, were significantly more important than price, but also noted that if the evaluation of the non-price factors “approache[d] equality” between proposals, “the importance of price in the evaluation for award [would] increase.”[2]  Id. at 54.  As relevant to this protest, under the organizational experience subfactor offerors were instructed to provide specific and relevant information regarding experience examples relevant to C4 support for MSC’s Afloat environment and MSC’s mission.  Id. at 50.  Under this subfactor, offerors were to address experience with regard to tasks such as maintenance and sustainment, modernization, equipment/asset management, and MSC Network Operations Centers.  Id. Under the past performance factor, offerors were to provide information on up to five recent government contracts relevant to the effort required under this RFP.  Id. at 52.  In this regard, the RFP instructed offerors to submit narratives explaining the similarity of these contracts to the requirements here, and the role performed, including whether the offeror acted as a prime contractor or a subcontractor.  Id.  The agency would evaluate the recency and relevance of the past performance information submitted.  Id.  The solicitation defined relevant as “a contract that is of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity” to the solicitation requirements.  Id. at 52.