MicroTechnologies, LLC (FA2816-20-R-0004)

B-418894 Oct 07, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MicroTechnologies LLC (MT), of Tysons Corner, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to SMS Data Products Group, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2816-20-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force, United States Space Force, to acquire information technology support services. MT argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection 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:  MicroTechnologies, LLC File:  B-418894 Date:  October 7, 2020 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Emily Unnasch, Esq., Chelsea B. Knudson, Esq., and Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Eric S. Crusius, Esq., and Amy Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for SMS Data Products Group, Inc., an intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Captain Allison K.W. Johnson, Colby L. Sullins, Esq., and Linda Vu, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION   MicroTechnologies LLC (MT), of Tysons Corner, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to SMS Data Products Group, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2816-20-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force, United States Space Force, to acquire information technology support services.  MT argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the issuance, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) task order to perform the solicited services for a 1-month phase-in period, an 11-month base period and four 1-year option periods.  Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering two equally-weighted factors, price and technical.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 7, RFP amend. No. 0004, attach. 7, Evaluation Criteria, at 3.  The RFP further advised that the technical factor included two subfactors listed in descending order of importance, staffing approach and management approach.[1]  For price evaluation purposes, the RFP advised that the agency would review proposed prices for reasonableness, balance and consistency.  Id. at 4-5. The agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation, including those of the protester and the awardee.  The agency assigned both of their proposals acceptable ratings under the staffing approach subfactor, and outstanding ratings under the management approach subfactor.  AR, exh. 17, Source Selection Decision Briefing at 59, 75.[2]  The protester’s total price was $41,999,965, and the awardee’s total price was $38,545,121.[3]  Id.  On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency selected SMS for issuance of the task order on the basis of initial proposals, concluding that discussions would not measurably improve the proposals received, and that award to SMS would result in selection of the proposal offering the highest technical rating and lowest price.  Id. 96-97.  After being advised of the agency’s selection decision, MT filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION MT argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and, because of the alleged evaluation errors, also made an unreasonable source selection decision.[4]  We have reviewed all of the protester’s allegations and find no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation of MT’s proposal.  By extension, we have no basis to object to the agency’s source selection decision.  We note at the outset that, in considering challenges to an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office does not substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme and applicable statutes and regulations.  CDO Technologies, Inc.; Abacus Technology Corporation, B‑418111, et al., Jan.