Arctic Slope Mission Services, LLC

B-417244 Apr 08, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arctic Slope Mission Services LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., a small business of Wakefield, Massachusetts, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 18-R-0270, issued by the Department of the Air Force for advisory and assistance support services for the Hanscom Special Programs Community. The protester challenges the agency's cost realism analysis, technical evaluation, and best-value decision. 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: Arctic Slope Mission Services LLC File: B-417244 Date: April 8, 2019 Damien C. Specht, Esq., R. Locke Bell, Esq., and Rachael K. Plymale, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O'Brien, Esq., Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., the intervenor. Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposed costs for realism is denied where the agency reasonably made upward adjustments to protester's proposed costs based on actual rates from its incumbent effort during which it experienced recruitment and retention performance problems. 2. Protest that the agency should have assigned protester's proposal multiple strengths and a higher technical rating reflects the protester's disagreement with the agency's evaluation judgment, and provides no basis for sustaining the protest. 3. Protest that the agency improperly failed to conduct a comparative evaluation of proposals when making best-value selection decision is denied where the proposal selected for award was highest-rated technically and lowest-priced. DECISION Arctic Slope Mission Services LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., a small business of Wakefield, Massachusetts, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 18-R-0270, issued by the Department of the Air Force for advisory and assistance support services for the Hanscom Special Programs Community. The protester challenges the agency's cost realism analysis, technical evaluation, and best-value decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP as a limited small business set-aside on July 25, 2018, pursuant to the tradeoff source selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR) Tab 4, RFP, at 1 and 135.1 The RFP sought proposals for advisory and assistance support services for multiple directorates of the Hanscom Special Programs Community. Id. at 83. The RFP consolidated two previous contracts--one for engineering and logistics support and one for acquisition and programmatic support--into one contract vehicle. AR Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement (COS), at 2. The protester is the incumbent contractor for both of the previous contracts. Id. at 22. The RFP contemplated award of a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract consisting of a mix of fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, and cost-plus-fixed-fee line items for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. RFP at 4-5 and 101. In addition to awarding the base contract, the RFP also contemplated the issuance of the first task order, which was defined in a classified performance work statement. Id. The RFP provided that award would be made on the basis of five factors: (1) human resource management; (2) past performance; (3) cost/price; (4) transition plan; and (5) professional employee compensation plan. Id. at 137. Human resource management was the most important factor, followed by past performance, and then cost/price. Id. The fourth and fifth factors (transition plan and professional employee compensation plan) were to be rated solely for acceptability. Id. Award was to be made to the offeror representing the best value to the government; the human resource management and past performance factors combined were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The RFP advised offerors that human resource management would be assigned a technical rating ranging from blue/outstanding to red/unacceptable and a technical risk rating ranging from low risk to unacceptable risk. RFP at 138-139.