Lukos-VATC JV III, LLC (W900KK-19-R-0078)

B-418427.9,B-418427.11 Dec 22, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lukos VATC JV III, LLC (Lukos), a service-disabled veteran-owned small (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to F3EA, Inc., an SDVOSB of Savannah, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-19-R-0078, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for training support services. Lukos alleges that F3EA possesses organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and award 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:  Lukos-VATC JV III, LLC File:  B-418427.9; B-418427.11 Date:  December 22, 2020 Shane M. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Haley E. Claxton, Esq., and Quinten R. Fisher, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Joshua A. Mullen, Esq., and Darwin A. Hindman III, Esq., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, for F3EA, the intervenor. Alexa Bryan, Esq., and Andrea K. R-Ferrulli, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the record does not support allegations that the awardee participated in the drafting of the performance work statement or had access to non-public information that would have provided a competitive advantage. 2.  Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal and award decision is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Lukos VATC JV III, LLC (Lukos), a service-disabled veteran-owned small (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to F3EA, Inc., an SDVOSB of Savannah, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-19-R-0078, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for training support services.  Lukos alleges that F3EA possesses organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 30, 2018, the agency issued the solicitation as a set-aside for SDVOSBs pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 2, 58.  The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with an ordering ceiling of $245,000,000.  Id. at 2.  The RFP sought proposals for training support services in support of the Special Operations Forces Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, Operations and Rehearsal (SOF RAPTOR) IV requirement.  AR, Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.  The SOF RAPTOR IV contract would provide special operations forces (SOF) training for counter terrorism, counter narco-terrorism, counter proliferation and unconventional warfare missions using a mix of live, virtual, and constructive simulation scenarios.[1]  Id. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, capability, past performance, and cost/price.  RFP at 58-59.  The capability factor consisted of three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance, program management, crisis response force (CRF), and core competencies.  Id. at 59.  The program management subfactor required offerors to address four areas, including, as relevant here, exercise management, which required an offeror to demonstrate a thorough understanding of complex pre-exercise coordination and post-exercise activities.  Id.  In this regard, offerors were required to provide a realistic military training (RMT) packet and an after action review (AAR) for a previously executed exercise.[2]  Id.  The agency’s evaluation of the RMT packet would include an assessment of coordination, approval, and risk management documents.  Id. at 59.  Evaluation of the AAR would include an assessment of performance-based feedback spanning every phase of the exercise and specificity of recommendations for improvements.  Id. The past performance factor required offerors to submit no more than nine recent and relevant government or commercial contracts.[3]  Id.