Sayres & Associates Corporation (N00164-18-R-3006)

B-418382 Mar 31, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sayres & Associates Corporation, a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Reliability and Performance Technologies, LLC (RPT), by the Department of the Navy under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-18-R-3006 for program management support services related to the DDG-1000 Destroyer program. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of the offerors' past performance, and in its best-value tradeoff. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Sayres & Associates Corporation File:  B-418382 Date:  March 31, 2020 Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for the protester. Maria Panichelli, Esq., and Michael Richard, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for Reliability and Performance Technologies, the intervenor. Ryan Banach, Esq., and Lana K. Obert, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency past performance evaluation is denied when an evaluation error did not competitively prejudice the protester, and the evaluation was otherwise reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging agency best-value tradeoff is denied when the best-value tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Sayres & Associates Corporation, a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Reliability and Performance Technologies, LLC (RPT), by the Department of the Navy under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-18-R-3006 for program management support services related to the DDG-1000 Destroyer program.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of the offerors’ past performance, and in its best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 18, 2018, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, seeking proposals from firms holding Department of the Navy, Seaport Enhanced multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR) at 2; Protest at 4.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a base period of performance of one year and four 1-year options.  AR, Tab 1, RFP at 6.[1]  Additionally, the RFP indicated that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between three evaluation factors:  (1) technical and management; (2) past performance; and (3) total evaluated price.  Id. at 84.  In conducting the tradeoff, the technical factor was more important than the past performance factor, and those two factors when combined were significantly more important than price.  Id.  However, the RFP also noted that the degree of importance assigned to the price factor would “increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors […], or when the [total evaluated price] delta between [o]fferors is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the superiority of the other factors.”  Id. Relevant to this protest, with respect to the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP required offerors to provide past performance references reflecting relevant experience for the prior three fiscal years, as well as a past performance reference for each significant subcontractor.[2]  RFP at 74.  The RFP also advised offerors that the government may limit or expand the number of references it contacts, may contact references not provided by the offeror, and may review additional contract performance data obtained from other sources such as government databases or personal knowledge.  Id. at 74-75.  Finally, past performance would be evaluated on the basis of recency, relevance,[3] and quality, and assigned one of five ratings:  (1) substantial confidence; (2) satisfactory confidence; (3) limited confidence; (4) no confidence; or (5) unknown confidence.  Id.