Davis Defense Group, Inc.

B-417470 Jul 11, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Davis Defense Group, Inc., (Davis) a small business of Stafford, Virginia, challenges the issuance of a task order to MLT Systems, LLC, of Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-18-R-3005 issued under the Navy's Seaport multiple award indefinite-award, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract by the United States Marine Corps for business, acquisition, logistics, engineering, and test-related support services. The protester argues that the agency erred in finding its proposal to be technically unacceptable. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Davis Defense Group, Inc. File:B-417470 Date:July 11, 2019 Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Meghan Leemon, Esq., Timothy Valley, Esq., and Isaias Alba, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Martha Vazquez, Esq., and Richard O’Keeffe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for MLT Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Lisa L. Baker, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency erred in concluding proposal was technically unacceptable due to inadequate proposed staffing is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and the protester’s proposal contained numerous inconsistencies concerning the protester’s staffing approach. DECISION Davis Defense Group, Inc., (Davis) a small business of Stafford, Virginia, challenges the issuance of a task order to MLT Systems, LLC, of Stafford, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-18-R-3005 issued under the Navy’s Seaport multiple award indefinite-award, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract by the United States Marine Corps for business, acquisition, logistics, engineering, and test-related support services.The protester argues that the agency erred in finding its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 18, 2018, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, anticipating the issuance of a single task order.Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors:(1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price.Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Conformed RFP, at 67-69.  Additionally, the technical factor was composed of two elements:(1) technical approach and understanding; and (2) management approach.Id.Further, the technical approach and understanding element was divided into eight sub-elements, which related to specific performance work statement (PWS) paragraphs:(1) program management support; (2) acquisition development; (3) business and financial management; (4) logistics; (5) engineering; (6) test and evaluation; (7) assault amphibious vehicle (AAV) specific; and (8) amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) specific.Id. at 63-64. The RFP also indicated that the agency would assess one of five adjectival ratings for each offeror’s technical proposal:(1) outstanding; (2) good; (3) acceptable; (4) marginal; or (5) unacceptable.  RFP at 69.The RFP provided that the task order would be issued on the basis of a best-value tradeoff, but those proposals with either a marginal or an unacceptable technical rating would not be eligible for award or included in the tradeoff.Id.