Sayres & Associates Corporation

B-418374 Mar 30, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sayres and Associates Corporation, of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Reliability and Performance Technologies d/b/a RP Technologies (RP), of Dublin, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-18-R-3007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering support services. The protester argues that the agency's cost realism evaluation was unreasonable. We sustain 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:  Sayres & Associates Corporation File:  B-418374 Date:  March 30, 2020 Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for the protester. Maria L. Panichelli, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for Reliability and Performance Technologies, LLC, d/b/a RP Technologies, the intervenor. Ryan Banach, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation is sustained where the agency’s evaluation failed to reasonably evaluate the protester’s proposed escalation rate. DECISION Sayres and Associates Corporation, of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Reliability and Performance Technologies d/b/a RP Technologies (RP), of Dublin, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-18-R-3007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering support services.  The protester argues that the agency’s cost realism evaluation was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on June 20, 2018, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of Navy Seaport-e indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.[1]  The RFP anticipated issuing a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options, to provide engineering services to support technical integration, management, testing, and evaluation services to assist the “PMS 500”[2] in accomplishing its objectives.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 4, 11.[3] The task order was to be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors:  technical and management, past performance, and total evaluated cost (TEC).  RFP at 83-84.  Under the technical and management factor, proposals would be assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable.[4]  Id.  For the past performance factor, proposals would be assigned a confidence rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.  Id. at 86.  In terms of relative importance, the technical and management factor was more important than the past performance factor, which was more important than TEC.  Id. at 84.  The technical factors, when combined, were deemed significantly more important than the TEC.  Id.  With regard to cost, the agency was to evaluate the reasonableness, realism, and completeness of the cost data provided.  Id. at 88. Only Sayres and RP timely submitted proposals in response to the RFP.  COS/MOL at 2.  The Navy evaluated proposals, with the following results:   Sayres RP Technical and Management Good Outstanding Past Performance Satisfactory Substantial Total Proposed Cost $40,333,075 $41,215,323 Total Evaluated Cost $42,485,798 $41,843,330   AR, Tab 9, Best-Value Determination, at 3-6. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the Technical Evaluation Team’s and Cost Evaluation Team’s (CET) analyses and performed an integrated assessment of proposals against the RFP’s evaluation criteria.  Id. at 3.  The SSA concluded that RP’s proposal represented the best value to the agency.  Id. at 6.  In making award, the SSA stated that RP’s proposal was technically superior under both non-price factors and had a lower total evaluated cost (TEC) than Sayres’ proposal.  Id. at 7. On November 27, Sayres was notified of the agency’s decision to issue the task order to RP.  AR, Tab 2, Sayres Debrief Letter, at 1.  Sayres submitted a written request for a debriefing the following day, which the agency provided to Sayres on December 2.  Id. Pursuant to the terms of the enhanced debriefing provided by the agency, Sayres was permitted to ask questions related to the debriefing.  Id. Sayres submitted two questions as part of its enhanced debriefing.  AR, Tab 14, Sayres Enhanced Debrief Questions and Answers, at 3.  The agency provided responses to Sayres’ questions on December 5.  Id.