Morgan Business Consulting, LLC (N66604-18-R-3012)

B-418165.11 Jul 19, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Morgan Business Consulting, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Morgan Business Consulting, LLC, B-418165.6, B-418165.9, Apr. 15, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 171. In that decision, we denied Morgan's protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Synchron, LLC, of Fairfax Station, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-18-R-3012, issued by the Department of the Navy, to procure program, business, and engineering management, as well as integrated logistics support services. Morgan argues that our decision should be reconsidered because it contains errors of fact and law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  Morgan Business Consulting, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-418165.11 Date:  July 19, 2021 Todd R. Overman, Esq., Sylvia Yi, Esq., and Roee Talmor, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for the protester. Michelle S. Bennett, Esq., Cara R. Little, Esq., and Kelsey Harrer, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of a prior decision is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Morgan Business Consulting, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Morgan Business Consulting, LLC, B-418165.6, B-418165.9, Apr. 15, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 171.  In that decision, we denied Morgan’s protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Synchron, LLC, of Fairfax Station, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-18-R-3012, issued by the Department of the Navy, to procure program, business, and engineering management, as well as integrated logistics support services.  Morgan argues that our decision should be reconsidered because it contains errors of fact and law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND As explained in our decision, the RFP was issued on August 22, 2018, as a small business set-aside pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, seeking proposals from holders of the Navy’s SeaPort-e indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award contract.[1]  Morgan Bus. Consulting, supra at 1.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, where the technical capability factor was more important than the past performance factor, and these two factors combined were significantly more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. at 2.  The Navy received four timely proposals, and on September 23, 2019, made an award to Morgan.  Id.  The award to Morgan was challenged by the disappointed offerors; the Navy elected to take corrective action and the protests were dismissed as academic.  Id.  The agency reevaluated proposals and on December 21, 2020, informed Morgan that an award had been made to Synchron.  Id. at 3.  In its protest, Morgan challenged numerous aspects of the evaluation of proposals.  Relevant here, Morgan argued that Synchron’s proposal should have been rejected because it was clear on its face that the proposal did not comply with FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting.  Morgan also argued that the agency’s waiver of certain key personnel requirements was tailored specifically to remedy deficiencies in Synchron’s proposal, and that the agency improperly credited Synchron for proposing to use Lean Six Sigma procedures although no such representation was made within the proposal.  Further, Morgan argued that the agency unreasonably identified weaknesses in its proposal related to a corporate transaction involving a proposed subcontractor, and that the agency’s cost evaluation contained numerous, prejudicial errors. After we reviewed the record, our Office denied Morgan’s protest.  In our decision, we agreed with the agency’s conclusion that it was not clear on the face of Synchron’s proposal that it would violate the limitation on subcontracting clause.  Morgan Bus. Consulting, supra at 10-11.  We further found no basis in the record to conclude that the agency had tailored the waiver of certain key personnel requirements solely to cure deficiencies in Synchron’s proposal, or that the evaluation was otherwise flawed.  Id.