Amentum Services, Inc. (W52P1J-19-R-0081)

B-418742.3,B-418742.4,B-418742.6,B-418742.7 Sep 30, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Amentum Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, and VS2, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protest the award of a task order to Vanquish Worldwide, LLC, of Knoxville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0081, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for logistical support services for the Logistics Readiness Center in Fort Polk, Louisiana. Amentum and VS2 challenge the agency's determination that their proposals were technically unacceptable. The protesters also challenge the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance and affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. 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:  Amentum Services, Inc.; VS2, LLC File:  B-418742.3; B-418742.4; B-418742.6; B-418742.7 Date:  September 30, 2021 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for Amentum Services, Inc.; and Jackson W. Moore, Jr., Esq., and David L. Hayden, Esq., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., for VS2, LLC, the protesters. Michael D. Maloney, Esq., Williams Mullen, and Todd Miller, Esq., Miller & Miller, LLC, for Vanquish Worldwide, LLC, the intervenor. Alexa Bryan, Esq., George P. Farley, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protests challenging the evaluation of technical proposals are denied where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protesters are not interested parties to challenge the agency’s responsibility determination of the awardee and evaluation of the awardee’s proposal because they would not be in line for award even if their protests were sustained. DECISION Amentum Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, and VS2, LLC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protest the award of a task order to Vanquish Worldwide, LLC, of Knoxville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-0081, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for logistical support services for the Logistics Readiness Center in Fort Polk, Louisiana.  Amentum and VS2 challenge the agency’s determination that their proposals were technically unacceptable.  The protesters also challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and affirmative determination of the awardee’s responsibility. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on April 6, 2020, to holders of basic ordering agreements under the Army’s Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program.[1]  RFP at 2.[2]  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order with a 1-year base period, five 1-year option periods, and one 6-month option period.  Id.  The purpose of the order was to provide logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation support, for the Army’s Logistics Readiness Center in Fort Polk, Louisiana.  Id. The RFP provided for award to a responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer with a past performance rating of substantial confidence and a small business participation rating of acceptable.  Id. at 93.  The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated using a two-step methodology under the following four factors:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) cost/price, and (4) small business participation.  Id. at 94.  In step 1, the agency planned to evaluate the technical proposals, starting from the proposal with the lowest total proposed price, and continue until five or 20 percent (whichever is greater) of the proposals were determined to be technically acceptable.  Id.  Of the five or more technically acceptable proposals, the three with the lowest total proposed prices would advance to step 2, where each proposal would be evaluated under the past performance, cost/price, and small business participation factors.[3]  Id. As relevant here, proposals were to be evaluated under the technical factor on an acceptable/unacceptable basis against “all of the listed criteria identified in” sections L.5.2 and M.5.1 of the RFP.  Id. at 95.  The RFP informed offerors that no technical tradeoffs would be made and no additional credit given for exceeding acceptability.  Id.