Ausley Associates, Inc.

B-417509,B-417509.2,B-417509.3 Jul 24, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ausley Associates, Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0035, issued by the Department of the Army for special electronic mission aircraft intelligence, surveillance and recognizance pilot and flight operations support services. Ausley argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection 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:  Ausley Associates, Inc. File:  B-417509; B-417509.2; B-417509.3 Date:  July 24, 2019 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Lindy C. Bathurst, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James M. Larkin, Esq., The Larkin Law Group LLP, for CACI, Inc.--Federal, an intervenor. Patrick G. Nelson, Esq., Rachel S. Sanders, Esq., Christopher C. Schwan, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record shows agency’s evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Ausley Associates, Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0035, issued by the Department of the Army for special electronic mission aircraft intelligence, surveillance and recognizance pilot and flight operations support services.  Ausley argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the issuance, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a principally fixed-price task order under the Army’s Rapid Response Third Generation (RS3) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The awardee was to perform the services over a base year, two 1-year option periods, one 10-month option period, one 6-month option period to cover any extension under the RFP’s extension of services clause, and a final 14-day option to cover post-performance phase-out activities, considering price and several non-price considerations.[1]  Proposals would first be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable under a corporate experience factor.  Among those proposals deemed acceptable under the corporate experience factor, the RFP provided that technical,[2] small business participation and price factors would be used to evaluate proposals and to make a best-value tradeoff decision, with technical being deemed significantly more important than price, and price being deemed significantly more important than small business participation.[3]  RFP at 17-18.  The RFP provided that prices would be evaluated for reasonableness, compliance and completeness, but specifically advised that prices would not be evaluated for realism.  RFP at 23.  In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals, including those of the protester and the awardee.  The agency evaluated proposals, engaged in discussions, and solicited, obtained and evaluated final proposal revisions.  Based on those actions the agency assigned both Ausley’s and CACI’s proposals acceptable ratings under the corporate experience factor and excellent ratings under the technical and small business factors.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 30, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 4-9. The record also shows that Ausley proposed a total price of $222,313,217, while CACI proposed a total price of $197,195,790.  Id. at 10.  Based on these evaluation results, the agency determined that, as between Ausley and CACI, CACI offered the best value to the government; the agency ultimately selected CACI for award.  Id. at 19, 25.  After being advised of the agency’s selection decision and requesting and receiving a debriefing, Ausley filed the instant protest.