OBXtek, Inc. (RS3-20-0044)

B-419478,B-419478.2 Mar 23, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights OBXtek, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC (BMA), also a SDVOSB, of Leavenworth, Kansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-20-0044, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for program management, administrative support, and training at regional signal training sites (RSTS). The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated OBXtek's and BMA's cost and technical proposals. 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:  OBXtek, Inc. File:  B-419478; B-419478.2 Date:  March 23, 2021 Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., General Counsel, PC, for the protester. Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC, the intervenor. William J. Wrabley, III, Esq., and Alexa Bryan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the evaluation of the realism of the awardee’s proposed costs is denied where the agency reasonably found that the costs were realistic and did not require adjustments. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s corporate experience is denied where the record shows no possibility that the agency’s evaluation could have resulted in prejudice to the protester.  DECISION   OBXtek, Inc., a service‑disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC (BMA), also a SDVOSB, of Leavenworth, Kansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-20-0044, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for program management, administrative support, and training at regional signal training sites (RSTS).  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated OBXtek’s and BMA’s cost and technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on September 11, 2020, seeking proposals to provide program management, administrative support, and instructors for training sponsored by the Army Cyber Center of Excellence.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1; Tab 6, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3.  The work will be performed at 11 RSTS locations in and outside the continental United States.  PWS at 3.  The RFP limited competition to SDVOSBs that hold Responsive Strategic Sources for Services (RS3) indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts awarded by the agency.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a task order with fixed‑price and cost- reimbursement contract line item numbers, with a base period of 1 year, and one 1-year option.  Id. at 7. The RFP advised offerors[1] that proposals would be evaluated based on three factors:  (1) technical, (2) small business participation, and (3) cost.  Id. at 34-38.  The small business participation factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 38.  The technical factor had four elements:  (1) transition-in, (2) management approach, (3) staffing approach, and (4) corporate experience.  Id. at 24-27.  The RFP advised that adjectival ratings would be assigned to each element of the technical factor, but that “[t]here will NOT be an overall rating for Volume I – Technical.”  Id. at 36.  For the technical factor elements, the RFP stated that proposals would be assigned ratings of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.  Id. at 37.  For purposes of the best-value tradeoff award decision, the technical factor was “significantly more important” than cost.  Id.