ACTA, LLC (HTC71119RD007)

B-418352.3,B-418352.4 Aug 28, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACTA, LLC, a small business of Torrance, California, protests the award of a contract to UNCOMN, a small business of Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71119RD007, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for enterprise architecture, data, and engineering services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision are unreasonable. 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:  ACTA, LLC File:  B-418352.3; B-418352.4 Date:  August 28, 2020 Damien C. Specht, Esq., R. Locke Bell, Esq., and Alissandra D. Young, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Tod D. Stephens, Esq., Armstrong Teasdale LLP, for the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, and Christopher M. Judge, Esq., Department of the Air Force; and Kenneth M. Roth, Esq., A.J. Koudelka, Esq., and Robert J. Depke, Esq., United States Transportation Command, for the agencies. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals and selection decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   ACTA, LLC, a small business of Torrance, California, protests the award of a contract to UNCOMN, a small business of Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71119RD007, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), for enterprise architecture, data, and engineering services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision are unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 16, 2019, using the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, was set aside for small businesses. Agency Report (AR), Tab 62, RFP at 1, 28.[1]   The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and labor hour line items, for a five-year ordering period.  Id. at 4, 33.  The purpose of the procurement is to acquire the agency’s consolidated requirements for enterprise architecture, enterprise data management, and information technology engineering services for USTRANSCOM and its transportation component commands.  AR, Tab 21, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2-3. The RFP stated that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical/ management, past performance, and price.  RFP at 33-34.  The technical/management and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. at 34.  The technical/management factor included the following subfactors:  (1) capability maturity model integration (CMMI) level III in the development and/or services model; (2) architecture – Department of Defense architecture framework (DODAF) model; (3) data management; and (4) enterprise engineering support.  Id. at 33-34.  The CMMI level III subfactor was to be rated on a pass/fail basis; a proposal that received a fail rating under this subfactor would not be further evaluated.  Id. at 34.  For the remaining three subfactors, which were of equal importance, proposals were to be evaluated qualitatively by identifying strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, and assigned the following ratings:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 34-35. Under the past performance factor, the RFP required that offerors submit a minimum of one and a maximum of five references that the offeror considered relevant to demonstrate its ability to perform the requirements.  RFP at 29-30.  The RFP stated that the evaluation of past performance would consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts.[2]  Id. at 36.  Each past performance effort was to be assigned one of the following relevancy ratings:  very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.  Id.  The RFP further stated that the agency would consider the quality of recent and relevant past performance efforts, and assign an overall confidence rating as follows:  substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, or no confidence.  Id.