United Support Services, LLC

B-417384,B-417384.3 Jun 18, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Support Services, LLC (USS), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to AASKI Technologies, Inc., of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0013, issued by the Department of the Army for technology support services. USS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, treated USS and AASKI disparately in the evaluation, and improperly failed to hold discussions. 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:  United Support Services, LLC File:  B-417384; B-417384.3 Date:  June 18, 2019 Craig S. King, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Abram J. Pafford, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the protester. Roshan D. Shah, Esq., and Kevin Foltmer, Esq., Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, for the intervenor. Peter S. Kozlowski, Jr., Esq., Michael G. Skennion, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency unreasonably assigned a deficiency to protester’s proposal is denied where proposal did not clearly demonstrate that the protester would provide airborne sensor operators for specific systems, as required by the solicitation. 2.  Protest that agency treated protester and awardee disparately is denied where agency considered that both intended to have teammates provide airborne sensor operators (ASO), but awardee’s proposal showed that teammates had ASOs that worked with specific sensors, while the protester’s teammate did not. 3.  Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation § 215.306, which provides that an agency should hold discussions where procurement is valued at more than $100 million, is not applicable to procurements conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16.  DECISION United Support Services, LLC (USS), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to AASKI Technologies, Inc., of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP)No. RS3-18-0013, issued by the Department of the Army for technology support services.  USS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, treated USS and AASKI disparately in the evaluation, and improperly failed to hold discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, for sensor technology, operations and readiness maintenance (STORM), was issued on August 23, 2018, to holders of the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract using the procedures of Federal Acquisition (FAR) part 16.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Email to RS3 Prime Contractors, at 1; AR, Tab 36, RFP, at 22.[1]  The solicitation sought technology insertion, system integration/installation, fabrication/prototyping, testing/certification, studies/analyses, contractor logistics support, maintenance, operations, training, and engineering support for product manager, medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance systems (PdM MARSS).  AR, Tab 33, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1.  These services will support the overall mission of PdM MARSS of providing tactically relevant manned aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in support of both persistent missions and current, and emerging, overseas contingency operations.  Id. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee/cost-no-fee task order using a best-value tradeoff based on cost/price, and the following non cost/price factors:  technical, contractor support capabilities, and small business participation plan.  RFP at 1,18.  The technical factor was comprised of two subfactors:  (1) task order execution, with three parts:  key performance areas, transition plan, and basis of estimate; and (2) technical approaches, which described three situations designated as technical approach 1, technical approach 2, and technical approach 3, for each of which the offeror was required to provide a solution.  Id. at 7, 18.  The technical and contractor support capabilities factors were assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable based on an assessment of deficiencies, strengths, and weaknesses. [2]  Id. at 20.  A technical factor or subfactor was unacceptable if it was assigned one or more deficiencies.  Id. at 19, 20.  A rating of unacceptable under any technical factor or subfactor made the proposal ineligible for award.  Id. at 18.  The solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award a task order “without any discussions, questions, or clarifications.”  Id.