AECOM Management Services, Inc. (RS3-18-0077)

B-418467,B-418467.2,B-418467.3,B-418467.4 May 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AECOM Management Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Sigmatech, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0077, which was issued for support services for the Army's Aviation and Missile Command Field Maintenance Activity at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. AECOM argues that the Army unreasonably found its proposal unacceptable under the technical and cost evaluation factors. 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:  AECOM Management Services, Inc. File:  B-418467; B-418467.2; B-418467.3; B-418467.4 Date:  May 15, 2020 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Kirsten W. Konar, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price, P.C., for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Nathaniel L. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Sigmatech, Inc., the intervenor. Alexa B. Bryan, Esq., Jennifer Janulewicz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposed costs is denied where the agency reasonably found that the costs could not be evaluated for realism because the protester failed to provide information required by the solicitation. DECISION   AECOM Management Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Sigmatech, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0077, which was issued for support services for the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command Field Maintenance Activity at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.  AECOM argues that the Army unreasonably found its proposal unacceptable under the technical and cost evaluation factors.    We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on September 16, 2019, seeking proposals to provide technical, engineering, logistical, and material support services for the Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 19, Revised Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2; Tab 11, Revised RFP at 1.[1]  The competition was limited to firms that held one of the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts awarded by the Army, known as Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services contracts.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a task order with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement requirements, with a 1-year transition and base period, and four 1-year options.  Id.  The successful offeror[2] will be required to provide support for electronic systems, missile systems and subsystems, electronic communication systems and subsystems, automated test equipment, test program sets, test measurement and diagnostic equipment, standard and non-standard Army aviation support equipment, and associated hardware.  PWS at 2. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of five factors:  (1) technical[3], (2) cost/price, (3) small business participation and subcontracting, (4) award eligibility under the System for Award Management (SAM), and (5) organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).  RFP at 13-17.  For purposes of award, the technical factor was “significantly more important” than cost/price.  Id. at 13. The Army received proposals from seven offerors, including AECOM and Sigmatech, by the closing date of October 16.  AR, Tab 38, Task Order Decision Document (TODD) at 4.  The agency found that AECOM’s proposal was unacceptable under the technical factor because it did not propose labor categories that “meet the needs of the requirement.”  Id. at 22.  The agency also found that the protester’s cost proposal could not be evaluated, based on the deficiency in the technical proposal, and because it failed to provide required cost information.  Id.  Based on these findings, the agency concluded that AECOM’s proposal was ineligible for award.  Id. at 28.  The agency’s final evaluation of the offerors’ proposals was as follows:[4]   AECOM SIGMATECH Technical Does Not Meet Exceeds Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Acceptable Acceptable SAM Report Compliant Compliant OCI Mitigation Plan Compliant Compliant Proposed Cost $94,088,479 $105,829,500 Evaluated Cost Undetermined $107,841,070   Id.