UltiSat, Inc. (1411131)

B-418769.2,B-418769.3 Feb 26, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights UltiSat, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to SES Government Solutions, Inc. (SES-GS), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1411131, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency, for satellite bandwidth and related services to support the United States Air Force Central Command (USAFCENT). The protester challenges various aspects of the technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff 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:  UltiSat, Inc. File:  B-418769.2; B-418769.3 Date:  February 26, 2021 Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., and Kevin R. Massoudi, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., and Shaunna Bailey, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the intervenor. Vera A. Strebel, Esq., Daniel C. McIntosh, Esq., and Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s selection of a higher-priced, technically superior quotation is denied where the record shows that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and an error in the documentation was not prejudicial. DECISION UltiSat, Inc., of Gaithersburg, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to SES Government Solutions, Inc. (SES-GS), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1411131,[1] issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency, for satellite bandwidth and related services to support the United States Air Force Central Command (USAFCENT).  The protester challenges various aspects of the technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on January 27, 2020, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding contracts under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) No. 70 (Information Technology) that included Special Item Number 132-54/Multiple Award Schedule North American Industry Classification System code 517410.  RFQ at 1.[2]  The RFQ sought a contractor to provide satellite bandwidth and related services to support USAFCENT requirements in Southwest Asia.  The contractor would be required to provide “the ability to activate additional . . . bandwidth as needed, in support of emergent and contingency mission directives,” which would be used to “supplement” and “fill[] gaps in coverage and capability to any location within the [Southwest Asia] [area of responsibility].”  AR, Tab 2F1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order to be performed over a base period of 12 months and four 12-month option periods.  RFQ at 1.  The RFQ stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical approach and price.[3]  Id. at 4-9.  The technical approach factor was more important than price, and included four subfactors of equal importance.[4]  Id. at 5. For technical subfactor 1, space segment coverage and quality, the RFQ required vendors to provide satellite coverage maps depicting their technical solution, and provided that the agency would evaluate the extent to which the technical solution met or exceeded the requirements.  RFQ at 5.  The RFQ defined “coverage” as “closing the satellite link and meeting the [effective isotropic radiated power] and elevation angle requirements for all terminals operating within the defined coverage area.”  Id.  In this regard, the RFQ also provided that, where the RFQ did not indicate specific terminal locations, “meeting the coverage area shall be demonstrated by closing the satellite link using a worst-case scenario terminal location.”[5]  Id.  The RFQ provided that the agency could assess various strengths, including, of relevance here:  “The Government may assign strengths to the extent an offeror’s solution supports higher achievable throughputs[[6]] than those specified in [the] PWS.”[7]  Id.