Hurricane Consulting Inc (W9124J-20-R-0005)

B-418638.2 Dec 29, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hurricane Consulting Inc., of Windermere, Florida, a small business, protests the decision of the Department of the Army not to award a contract to Hurricane under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-20-R-0005, issued by the Army for base support services. The protester contends that its proposal was unreasonably rejected as unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety.   Decision Matter of:  Hurricane Consulting Inc. File:  B-418638.2 Date:  December 29, 2020 Andrés Vera, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Joseph S. Hayes, International Service Contractors, an intervenor. Lt. Col. Stephen M. Hernandez, Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Capt. Carlos S. Pedraza, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal as unacceptable is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION   Hurricane Consulting Inc., of Windermere, Florida, a small business, protests the decision of the Department of the Army not to award a contract to Hurricane under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-20-R-0005, issued by the Army for base support services.  The protester contends that its proposal was unreasonably rejected as unacceptable.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP anticipated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide installation augmentation services to support mobilization, deployments, redeployments, and demobilization under orders placed during a 10‑year ordering period.  The RFP was set aside for competition by service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) firms.  All of the contracts together have a total estimated value of $829 million, with a guaranteed minimum of $10,000 per contractor for the base year.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3-1, RFP at 2.  The RFP anticipated the award of contracts to all eligible offerors that submitted acceptable proposals, which the Army stated was pursuant to class deviation Department of Defense class deviation No. 2018-O0006.  Id. at 89 (¶ L.2.1) and 101 (¶ M.1.1).  Specifically, the RFP stated that “[a]ward will be made to all responsible Offerors whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, [and] conforms to all solicitation requirements . . . .  Price/cost WILL NOT be part of the evaluation basis for award.” [1]  Id. at 101 (¶ M.1.1).  The RFP instructed offerors to submit their proposals in three volumes.  Volume I, titled “general,” was to include an executive summary, a list of exceptions and assumptions, and a plan for the continuation of essential services.  The RFP also indicated that the content of volume I would not be evaluated.[2]  Id. at 91 (¶ L.3.2.2).  Volume II, titled “technical capability,” was to provide:  a management approach for the sample task order scenario (to be assessed under subfactor 1A), a staffing and training approach (assessed under subfactor 1B), and an explanation of the offeror’s expertise (assessed under subfactor 1C).  Id.  Proposal volume III was to provide past performance information.  Id. The evaluation of technical acceptability was to be based on the agency’s assessment of the offeror’s responses under the three subfactors (1A, 1B, and 1C).  Id. (¶ M.1.3.2).  The offeror’s response to the management approach for the sample task order scenario was to include a phase-in plan, among other things.  That plan was to include details about the offeror’s actions, risks, and timelines regarding six subjects, the second of which was titled “Identifying teaming member assignments.”  Id. at 95 (¶ L.4.3.1.1(b)).  Likewise, the evaluation would assess the completeness and reasonability of the offeror’s phase-in plan.  Id. at 102 (¶ M.2.1.1(b)).  In addition, to address the topic of expertise (subfactor 1C), the RFP directed offerors to demonstrate expertise in the area of maintaining and repairing similar weapons and vehicles, and the area of issuing, handling, storing, and maintaining full accountability for, arms, ammunition, and explosives.  Amendment 2 to the RFP provided a table listing the agency’s answers to numerous questions posed by prospective offerors.  See AR, Tab 3-4, RFP amend. 2, attach. 8 (Excerpt of Question & Answer Table).  As relevant to the protest, one prospective offeror asked “[w]ill the Government please clarify the intent behind identifying team member assignments?”  Id. at 2 (Question/Answer No.