Logistics Management Institute

B-417601,B-417601.2,B-417601.3,B-417601.4 Aug 30, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Logistics Management Institute (LMI) of Tysons, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-19-R-3502, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), for professional support services for the NAVWAR Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems (PEO-EIS). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the 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:  Logistics Management Institute File:  B‑417601; B‑417601.2; B‑417601.3; B‑417601.4 Date:  August 30, 2019 J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Ioana Cristei, Esq., and Spencer P. Williams, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Andrew. R. Guy, Esq., Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., and Brooke G. Stanley, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., the intervenor. Mark Munson, Esq. and Agu Onuma, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of technical proposals and source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the cost realism evaluation of protester’s and awardee’s proposals is denied where agency reasonably adjusted protester’s indirect rates and the agency’s use of the standard deviation methodology was unobjectionable. DECISION Logistics Management Institute (LMI) of Tysons, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039‑19‑R‑3502, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), for professional support services for the NAVWAR Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems (PEO‑EIS).[1]  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the proposals and the source selection decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2019, the Navy issued the RFP, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for program management services under the Navy’s Seaport Next Generation multiple-award contract.[2]  RFP at 1, 46‑47.  The RFP anticipated issuing a single cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee (CPFF) award term (level of effort) task order with a 1‑year base period and three 1‑year options to provide professional support services to  PEO‑EIS and its associated program/project management offices.[3]  Id. at 47.  PEO‑EIS provides “[i]nformation [t]echnology (IT) support and technical solutions for the [Navy] within the enterprise and business domain” and “represents every discipline within the acquisition management field[.]”  RFP attach 1, § 2.1. The solicitation anticipated award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, after a two‑phased source selection process.  RFP at 65.  The first phase required proposals to be evaluated against “gate” requirements on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id.  Only proposals found to be acceptable under phase one would proceed to the second phase, where they would be evaluated under the following factors, in descending order of importance:  sample problems/scenarios; management approach; and cost.  Id.  The two non‑cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost, and the government reserved the right to award to a lower cost offeror “when the offers were considered essentially equal in terms of all non‑cost [f]actors, or when specific strengths and benefits associated with a technically superior offeror do not support the payment of any associated cost premium.”  Id. The Navy received timely proposals from three offerors, including LMI and BAH.  COS/MOL at 14‑15.  All offerors were deemed acceptable under the gate requirements of phase one and went on to be evaluated under phase two.  Id.