Solution One Industries, Inc.

B-417441,B-417441.2,B-417441.3 Jul 09, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Solution One Industries, Inc., a small business of Killeen, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W900KK-18-R-0006, issued by the Army Contracting Command--Orlando (Army) for unmanned aircraft system instruction and mission support (UAS IMS) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated the protester's and awardee's technical proposals, conducted an unreasonable cost realism analysis, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff. 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: Solution One Industries, Inc. File: B-417441; B-417441.2; B-417441.3 Date: July 9, 2019 Isaias Alba IV, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Deborah Muldoon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated offerors' technical proposals is denied where, despite errors in the evaluation, the record does not show that the protester was prejudiced by such errors. 2. Protest challenging the agency's cost realism calculation and adjustment is denied where the agency's cost realism adjustment of the offerors' cost was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and any errors in calculations did not prejudice the protester. 3. Protest challenging the agency's best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION Solution One Industries, Inc., a small business of Killeen, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W900KK-18-R-0006, issued by the Army Contracting Command--Orlando (Army) for unmanned aircraft system instruction and mission support (UAS IMS) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated the protester's and awardee's technical proposals, conducted an unreasonable cost realism analysis, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on October 6, 2017, contemplating the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and cost contract line item numbers (CLINs), an ordering period of seven years, and a maximum ordering amount of $553.2 million. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Conformed RFP, at 1-3.1 The purpose of the procurement is to obtain instruction and mission support services comprised of in-class and field training for entry-level U.S. Army soldiers to operate and maintain the Shadow and Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft systems using simulation systems and actual flight operations. AR, Tab 10c, Performance Work Statement - Base Contract (Base PWS), at 3. The protester is "part of the incumbent team" for the services covered under the RFP. Supp. Protest at 1-2. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) program management, (2) performance confidence assessment, and (3) cost/price. RFP at 72. The RFP advised that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. at 73. As relevant here, the program management factor included the following four subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) recruitment/retention plan, (2) staffing, (3) quality control plan, and (4) task order 0001 transition plan. Id. at 72. The RFP stated that the following ratings would be used when evaluating the program management factor and subfactors: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.2 Id. at 73-74. With respect to cost/price, offerors were to complete a workbook containing their direct and fully burdened labor rates for 18 specified labor categories (additional labor categories could be added), along with supporting data and rationale for the rates. Id. at 68. The agency provided the estimated hours for each of the labor categories over the seven years of performance. See Tab 10a, Cost/Price Workbook. The RFP advised that the Army would evaluate cost/price by computing the offeror's total evaluated price. RFP at 78.