KIRA Training Services, LLC, dba KIRA Facilities Services (N40192-20-R-7040)

B-419149.2,B-419149.3 Jan 04, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KIRA Training Services LLC, a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Invicta Defense LLC, a small business of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-20-R-7040, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for transportation management and logistics support services at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. KIRA challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection process, including the agency's evaluation under the technical and price factors. 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:  KIRA Training Services, LLC, dba KIRA Facilities Services File:  B-419149.2; B-419149.3 Date:  January 4, 2021 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Caitlin A Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Adam Lasky, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Edward V. Arnold, Esq, and Bret C. Marfut, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Invicta Defense LLC, the intervenor. Laura Whitten, Esq., and John Aguon, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, 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 evaluation of proposals under multiple evaluation factors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester initially fails to make the threshold showing that one or more of the awardee’s prices was overstated and the protester’s later attempt to file a supplemental basis for this ground of protest is untimely. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and where the agency adequately documented its tradeoff rationale. 4.  Protest alleging that the agency failed to comply with the pre-award notification requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.503(a)(2) is denied where no timely post-award size protest was filed and the awardee has not been determined by the Small Business Administration to be other than small. DECISION KIRA Training Services LLC, a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Invicta Defense LLC, a small business of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-20-R-7040, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for transportation management and logistics support services at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam.[1]  KIRA challenges various aspects of the agency’s source selection process, including the agency’s evaluation under the technical and price factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP as a small business set-aside on February 20, 2020, seeking proposals to provide transportation management and logistics support services to the 36th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1‑2.  The RFP contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a 3‑month mobilization period, a 9-month base period, a 1-year option period, a 2-month demobilization period, and a 6-month extension of services option period.[2]  Id. at 2-3, 11.  The mobilization and demobilization performance periods contained only fixed-price contract line items.  Id. at 3.  The base period and option periods contained both a fixed-price contract line item, referred to by the agency as “recurring work,” and a fixed-price IDIQ contract line item, referred to by the agency as “non-recurring work.”  Id. at 3-7. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following non-price evaluation factors:  (1) management approach; (2) technical approach; (3) experience; (4) safety; and (5) past performance.  Id. at 75.  The RFP specified that the “technical” factors--management approach, technical approach, experience, and safety--were of equal importance to each other and, when combined, were of equal importance to past performance.  Id.  The non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were of “approximately” equal importance to price.  Id. Proposals would be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating under each non-price factor, and would also be assigned an adjectival rating for the technical proposal overall.  Id. at 80.  These ratings would be either outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.[3]  Id.