DynCorp International, LLC (W52P1J-19-R-0005)

B-418594,B-418594.2 Jun 23, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's issuance of a task order to Technica, LLC, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0005, for logistics support services at Fort Bliss, Texas. DynCorp challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process, including the agency's determination that DynCorp's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's requirements regarding small business participation. 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:  DynCorp International, LLC File:  B-418594; B-418594.2 Date:  June 23, 2020 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Chelsea B. Knudson, Esq., and Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Amy Conant Hoang, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., and Sarah F.  Burgart, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for Technica, LLC, the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Alex M. Cahill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that protester’s proposal failed to demonstrate compliance with the solicitation’s requirements, rendering the proposal ineligible for award. DECISION   DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order to Technica, LLC, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0005, for logistics support services at Fort Bliss, Texas.  DynCorp challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process, including the agency’s determination that DynCorp’s proposal failed to comply with the solicitation’s requirements regarding small business participation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2019, the agency issued the solicitation to contractors holding basic ordering agreements (BOA) under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods; provided that the successful offeror will be responsible for providing maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Bliss; and established the following evaluation factors: technical, small business participation, past performance, and cost/price.  AR, Tab 16, RFP at 2.  The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated under the technical and small business participation factors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis; assigned qualitative confidence ratings under the past performance factor;[2] and  evaluated for reasonableness and realism under the cost/price factor.  Id. at 110.  The solicitation further provided that award would be based on the proposal offering the lowest reasonable/realistic cost/price evaluated as acceptable under the technical and small business participation factors with a past performance rating of substantial confidence. Id.  Of specific relevance to this protest, in order to be evaluated as acceptable under the small business participation plan, the solicitation required large-business offerors[3] to “provide three individual subcontracting reports (ISRs) for recent contracts that included a subcontracting plan,” id. at 86, and advised that the agency “will evaluate the Offeror’s . . . achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR.”  Id. at 117.  Further, the solicitation warned that a proposal would be rejected as unacceptable under the small business participation factor, and ineligible for award, if it did not “provide[] documentation showing its small business goals were met or exceeded for each recent reference.”  Id. at 117-18.  On or before the September 3 closing date, proposals were submitted by seven offerors, including DynCorp and Technica.  In evaluating the ISRs submitted with DynCorp’s proposal under the small business participation factor, the agency concluded that the contracts identified by DynCorp had been performed by corporate entities with commercial and government entity (CAGE) codes[4] other than the CAGE code of the entity identified in DynCorp’s proposal as the offeror.  In this regard, the solicitation required that each proposal identify the offeror by providing, among other things, the CAGE code assigned to the offeror.  RFP at 70.  The solicitation further stated:  “an Offeror is defined as the prime BOA Holder submitting a proposal under this RFP.”  Id.