Professional Analysis, Inc. (M67004-20-Q-0008 )

B-419239,B-419239.2 Jan 08, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Professional Analysis, Inc. (PAI), a veteran-owned small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Cervello Technologies, LLC (Cervello), a veteran-owned small business of Clearwater, Florida, by the U.S. Marine Corps, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M67004-20-Q-0008 for distribution management support services. PAI argues that Cervello is ineligible for award and the agency's evaluation of Cervello's and PAI's quotations under the technical, past performance, and price evaluation factors was flawed. 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:  Professional Analysis, Inc. File:  B-419239; B-419239.2 Date:  January 8, 2021 Brian A. Darst, Esq., Brian A. Darst Attorney at Law, for the protester. David T. Ralston Jr., Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., and Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for Cervello Technologies, LLC, the intervenor. Ellen B. Clark, Esq., Veronica Hale, Esq., Elise L. Jones, Esq., and Graeme Henderson, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against the issuance of a task order for logistical support services is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Professional Analysis, Inc. (PAI), a veteran-owned small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Cervello Technologies, LLC (Cervello), a veteran-owned small business of Clearwater, Florida, by the U.S. Marine Corps, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. M67004-20-Q-0008 for distribution management support services.  PAI argues that Cervello is ineligible for award and the agency’s evaluation of Cervello’s and PAI’s quotations under the technical, past performance, and price evaluation factors was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2020, the Marines issued the RFQ under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 2, RFQ at 1.  The RFQ sought a contractor to provide distribution management support services.  Id. at 13.  This support entails providing integrated logistics support in the areas of program management, distribution, metrics and analysis, supply chain management, advocacy, and the preparation for transportation of Marine Corps military equipment and other supplies and material.  Id.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a hybrid fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, labor-hours contract to be performed for one 9-month base period and two, 1-year option periods.[1]  Id. at 13, 15.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three factors, listed in descending order of importance, technical, past performance and price.  Id. at 70. The technical factor was comprised of six equally rated subfactors.[2]  Id. at 70, 72.  Three subfactors are relevant to this procurement:  (1) subfactor 1.1 (the logistics subfactor); (2) subfactor 1.3 (the operations subfactor); and (3) subfactor 1.4 (the key personnel subfactor). The logistics subfactor required a quotation to demonstrate a working knowledge (e.g., technical/functional competence and experience) of Department of Defense (DOD), Navy and Marine Corps logistics and financial orders, policies, procedures, and concepts.  Id.  The operations subfactor required a quotation to demonstrate the vendor’s knowledge, competence, and expertise in providing operational/strategic level distribution and traffic management support to a flag officer command and enterprise.  The key personnel subfactor required eight resumes to demonstrate the firm’s understanding of how to recruit personnel with the skills, knowledge, abilities, education, and experience needed for the designated key positions.  Id.  Additionally, the performance work statement (PWS), under section 1.4.9, Key Personnel, required firms to provide the name, resume, and letter of intent for proposed key personnel identified in the quotation.  Id. at 17. Under the technical factor, quotations would be evaluated based on the thoroughness of the approach and level of understanding.  Id. at 70-71.  The contractor’s performance capability would also be evaluated in accordance with the PWS.  Id. at 70.  A technical evaluation board (TEB) would evaluate strengths, adequacies, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the firm’s technical quotation and assign each technical factor and subfactor an adjectival rating.  Id.