APT Research, Inc. (HQ0858-20-R-0003)

B-419459 Mar 12, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A-P-T Research, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to ARES Technical Services Corporation, of Burlingame, California, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-20-R-0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), for technical, engineering, advisory and management support (TEAMS) safety support services. APT challenges MDA's evaluation of the technical and cost proposals and contends that the best‑value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. 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:  A-P-T Research, Inc. File:  B-419459 Date:  March 12, 2021 J. Dale Gipson, Esq., Jon Levin, Esq., and Michael Rich, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and James G. Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for ARES Technical Services Corporation, the intervenor. Zachary Jacobson, Esq., Carlos Pedraza, Esq., Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Stephen Hernandez, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal as unacceptable under a technical subfactor for failing to provide a bilateral employment agreement for its proposed program manager is denied where the record reflects that, even had the protester received an acceptable rating under the subfactor, the protester’s proposal would not have been selected for award, and therefore, the protester cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record reflects that the agency reasonably evaluated the proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s cost realism analysis and evaluation of professional employee compensation plans is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46. DECISION A-P-T Research, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to ARES Technical Services Corporation, of Burlingame, California, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-20-R-0003, issued by the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), for technical, engineering, advisory and management support (TEAMS) safety support services.  APT challenges MDA’s evaluation of the technical and cost proposals and contends that the best‑value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable We deny the protest. BACKGROUND MDA issued the RFP, as a small business set-aside, on June 1, 2020.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3‑1, RFP at 1.  The solicitation anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed‑fee, level of effort contract for a base period of performance of three years with two 1‑year option periods.  Id. at 3; Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two factors:  mission capability and cost.  RFP, Tab 3-4, RFP, Section M at 4.  The mission capability factor was considered significantly more important than cost.  Id.  The solicitation also provided for the evaluation of the following two factors on a pass/fail basis:  information management and control plan (IMCP), and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) management plan.[1]  Id.  The mission capability factor included six subfactors, of equal importance:  safety risk acceptance package development and coordination; safety requirements tailoring process support; program safety documentation review; test event safety oversight; occupational safety & health program; and human capital management.  Each subfactor also included sub-elements.  Relevant to this protest, the following sub-elements were identified under the human capital management subfactor:  recruit qualified personnel, retain qualified personnel, problem resolution strategy, and a key staff position defined as the contract program manager (CPM).  AR, Tab 3-4, RFP, Section M at 10-11. The solicitation required the agency to evaluate cost for reasonableness, cost realism, and compliance with the evaluation of professional compensation provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-46, which was incorporated into the solicitation.