Yulista Tactical Services, LLC (W91CRB-19-R-0003)

B-417317.3,B-417317.5,B-417317.6 Jan 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Yulista Tactical Services LLC (Yulista), an 8(a) small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Tyonek Global Services, LLC (Tyonek), an 8(a) small business of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals No. W91CRB19R0003, issued by the Department of the Army for aviation support services at the U.S. Army's Redstone Test Center. Yulista challenges the agency's evaluation and award decision. 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:  Yulista Tactical Services LLC File:  B-417317.3; B-417317.5; B-417317.6 Date:   January 15, 2020 Amy L. O’Sullivan, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., and Stephanie L. Crawford, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Stephen L. Bacon, Esq., and Deborah N. Rodin, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC, for Tyonek Global Services, LLC, the intervenor. Captain Jeremy D. Burkhart, Stephen Hernandez, Esq., and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION Yulista Tactical Services LLC (Yulista), an 8(a) small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Tyonek Global Services, LLC (Tyonek), an 8(a) small business of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals No. W91CRB19R0003, issued by the Department of the Army for aviation support services at the U.S. Army’s Redstone Test Center.  Yulista challenges the agency’s evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on October 31, 2019, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as a set aside for companies participating in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 126-27.  The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort contract on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors:  technical; past performance; experience; transition plan; and cost/price.  AR, Tab 12, RFP § M at 3-4.  To be eligible for award a proposal was required to be rated acceptable or higher in every non-cost/price factor.[1]  Id. at 5.  In performing the best-value tradeoff, the technical factor was to be considered significantly more important than the cost/price factor.[2]  Id. at 2. The agency received multiple proposals, including those of Tyonek and Yulista, by the December 18 closing date.  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 5.  After evaluating initial proposals, conducting discussions, and receiving and evaluating final proposal revisions, Yulista’s and Tyonek’s final proposals were rated as follows:   Tyonek Yulista Technical Good Acceptable Workforce Management Acceptable Acceptable Technical Capability Good Good Safety Good Acceptable Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Experience Acceptable Acceptable Transition Plan Acceptable Acceptable Proposed Price $102,148,952 $97,499,823 Conflict of Interest No No   AR, Tab 21, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 6. The CO, acting as the source selection authority (SSA), concluded that Tyonek’s proposal offered the best value to the government based upon a review of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) report, and the SSA’s integrated assessment and comparison of strengths, weaknesses, and risks identified in the submitted proposals.  Id. at 1.  The SSA concluded that the advantages in Tyonek’s proposal under the technical subfactors warranted the price premium, as compared to lower-priced offerors, including Yulista.  Id.