TEP OpCo, LLC (W900KK-20-R-0058)

B-419158 Dec 22, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tower Engineering Professional, LLC (Tower), a small business of Raleigh, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. (AST), a small business of Lawton, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-20-R-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command-Orlando, for tactical communication services. Tower alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and that AST had an unfair competitive advantage. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Tower Engineering Professional, LLC File:  B-419158 Date:  December 22, 2020 Charles Holstein for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, 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 the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably found that numerous aspects of the protester’s proposal did not satisfy the solicitation criteria. 2.  Protest alleging that the awardee had an unfair incumbent advantage is denied where the record reflects that any advantage arising from the awardee’s past performance with the agency constituted normally occurring incumbent advantage. DECISION   Tower Engineering Professional, LLC (Tower), a small business of Raleigh, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. (AST), a small business of Lawton, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-20-R-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command-Orlando, for tactical communication services.  Tower alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and that AST had an unfair competitive advantage. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 10, 2020, as a small-business set-aside, contemplates the award of a contract for efforts required to replace four tactical communication towers and shelters, and to perform a tower technology refresh at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana.  It also concerns efforts required to perform a tower technology refresh at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) located in Hohenfels, Germany.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 027, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1-2.  Award was to be made using the lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, based on an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria.  AR, Tab 026, RFP § M.3.2.1. Specifically, the solicitation stated the following: The Government will evaluate the [o]fferor’s proposal against the requirements set out in Attachment 2, “Requirements Matrix,” to determine whether the proposal is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” using the rating[s] and descriptions provided below.  An [o]fferor’s technical proposal will not be found Acceptable unless all the requirements are found Acceptable.  A rating of Unacceptable for any requirement will cause the entire technical proposal to be found Unacceptable and may cause the [o]fferor not be considered for award. Id. § M.3.1. The RFP cautioned offerors to include sufficiently detailed information in their proposals to provide the evaluators with a clear understanding of the offeror’s approach, and emphasized that “[c]larity and completeness of the proposal are of the utmost importance.”  Id. § L.6.1.  Offerors were instructed to submit proposals in five volumes, one volume for each of the following evaluation factors:  technical, management, logistics, past performance, and cost/price.  AR, Tab 5, Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3; RFP § M.2.0.  The factors included 37 evaluation criteria, which were set forth in a requirements matrix attached to the solicitation.  AR, Tab 028, Requirements Matrix.  Tower and AST submitted proposals in response to the solicitation.  COS/MOL at 3.  The agency rated Tower’s past performance as acceptable, but found the proposal unacceptable in 15 of the 37 criteria under the technical, logistics, and management factors.