Peraton Inc. (FA8818-18-R-0021)

B-417358.3 Apr 30, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, requests that we recommend reimbursement in the amount of $96,475.38 for its protest costs incurred in its challenge to the award of a contract to Engility Corporation of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8818-18-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering, development, integration, and sustainment services in support of satellite systems for the Air Force Space Command, Space Warfighting Construct. Following our Office's earlier decision sustaining the protest and recommending payment of the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, Peraton submitted a certified claim for such costs to the agency. We deny Peraton's request to the extent it seeks our recommendation for reimbursement in excess of the amount the agency has offered. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Peraton, Inc.--Costs File:  B-417358.3 Date:  April 30, 2020 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price, P.C., for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and Michael J. Farr, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that agency reimburse a greater share of protester’s costs than the agency has offered to pay is denied where the agency’s offer, based on severability of the unsuccessful protest issues from the single sustained protest ground and application of a “page count” method, was reasonable. DECISION   Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, requests that we recommend reimbursement in the amount of $96,475.38 for its protest costs incurred in its challenge to the award of a contract to Engility Corporation of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8818-18-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering, development, integration, and sustainment services in support of satellite systems for the Air Force Space Command, Space Warfighting Construct.  Following our Office’s earlier decision sustaining the protest and recommending payment of the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, Peraton submitted a certified claim for such costs to the agency. As discussed below, we deny Peraton’s request to the extent it seeks our recommendation for reimbursement in excess of the amount the agency has offered. BACKGROUND On March 5, 2019, Peraton filed a protest with our Office challenging various aspects of the agency’s award of a contract to Engility.  On April 15, Peraton filed a supplemental protest, in which it asserted that Engility did not meet the RFP’s material requirement for small business participation under the program management technical subfactor and, therefore, was ineligible for award.  After the parties filed briefings on the protest and supplemental protest, our Office held a conference call on May 15 to discuss certain substantive matters, including concerns about the record and the agency’s evaluation of Engility’s proposal under the small business participation requirement.  The parties then filed second supplemental briefings focusing on Peraton’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation under the solicitation’s small business participation requirement. On June 11, we sustained Peraton’s protest on a single issue--that is, its challenge to the agency’s evaluation of Engility’s proposal under the small business participation requirement.  Peraton, Inc., B-417358, B‑417358.2, June 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 216.  Specifically, we found that the agency’s evaluation of Engility’s proposal under this requirement was unreasonable, inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, and undocumented.  We also found that the agency’s award was improper because Engility’s proposal failed to meet the minimum percentage of the small business participation requirement and, therefore, was technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.  In our decision, we specifically rejected all of Peraton’s other challenges, including but not limited to:  the agency’s evaluation of Peraton’s proposal under both technical subfactors; the agency’s alleged unequal evaluation of Peraton’s and Engility’s proposals; the agency’s evaluation of Peraton’s final proposal revisions, and documentation thereof; the agency’s best-value tradeoff and award decision; and the agency’s decision not to evaluate past performance.  Id.