TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (W15P7T-20-F-9108)

B-419323 Jan 14, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Trace Systems, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Envistacom, LLC, of Atlanta, Georgia, under request for task execution plans (RTEP) No. W15P7T-20-F-9108, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under the Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems II (GTACS II) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, for operation, maintenance and sustainment services for several communication systems and networks including tactical and strategic antenna systems. Trace contends that the Army misevaluated both firms' past performance and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision   Decision Matter of:  Trace Systems, Inc. File:  B-419323 Date:  January 14, 2021 James K. Kearney, Esq., Gary J. Campbell, Esq., and Lidiya Kurin, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for the protester. Richard J. Conway, Esq., and Michael J. Slattery, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Envistacom, LLC, the intervenor. Alexa B. Bryan, Esq., and Jennifer A. Janulewicz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated the protester’s and awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  DECISION   Trace Systems, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Envistacom, LLC, of Atlanta, Georgia, under request for task execution plans (RTEP) No. W15P7T-20-F-9108, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under the Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems II (GTACS II) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, for operation, maintenance and sustainment services for several communication systems and networks including tactical and strategic antenna systems.  Trace contends that the Army misevaluated both firms’ past performance and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RTEP, issued May 20, 2020, contemplated the issuance of a single task order consisting of “Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Term and Cost efforts” for 36 months (a base year and two option years).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTEP, at 1.  The RTEP task order would be issued to the vendor whose task execution plan (TEP) was acceptable under two “gate” criteria, technically acceptable, and provided the best value as determined by a past performance-cost tradeoff.  Id. at 17.  The scope of the required work was described in an accompanying performance work statement (PWS).  AR, Tab 29, RFP amend. 1 attach. 9, PWS, at 2.  The PWS provided a detailed description of the agency’s requirement for services within the United States and at least 31 listed countries, several of which are in the Middle East.  Id. at 3.   The RTEP directed vendors to submit a TEP consisting of eight elements:  a technical volume, a past performance volume, a cost volume, a small business participation plan, a system for award management (SAM.gov) report, an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) declaration and mitigation plan, an Afghanistan business license declaration, and a continuation of essential contractor services plan.  RTEP at 3.  For the past performance factor, the RTEP directed vendors to provide information about recent relevant contracts and task orders with the Department of Defense.[1]  The RTEP listed seven critical capabilities to which each vendor’s past performance would be compared in assessing the “relevancy” of past performance.  Among these, critical capability No. 3 was Army Strategic Command (ARSTRAT) “certification testing and generation of reports.”  Id.  The RTEP specifically requested “experience performing testing for ARSTRAT certification,” including the radio frequency band for which the vendor had performed testing, and the vendor’s involvement in generating a report based on the testing results.  Id.  For critical capability No. 7, the RTEP indicated that relevant past performance would involve “OCONUS [outside continental United States] FSR [field support representative] support for both tactical and strategic networks” in all 31 countries encompassed in the PWS.  Id. at 9‑10.  The RTEP explained that past performance that showed personnel deployed to more countries could be viewed as more relevant than performance showing deployments to fewer countries.  Id. at 10.