Linchpin Solutions, Inc. (N0018920RZ111)

B-419564 May 10, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Linchpin Solutions, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to Advanced Computer Learning Company (ACLC), an SDVOSB of Fayetteville, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018920RZ111, for joint tactical operations (JTO) interface training program support. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, which resulted in an improper best-value tradeoff and award to ACLC. 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:  Linchpin Solutions, Inc. File:  B-419564 Date:  May 10, 2021 Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Christine C. Fries, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Kathryn M. Cox and Charles A. Manship, Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, for the intervenor. Timothy Lorenzi, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Linchpin Solutions, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, to Advanced Computer Learning Company (ACLC), an SDVOSB of Fayetteville, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018920RZ111, for joint tactical operations (JTO) interface training program support.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, which resulted in an improper best-value tradeoff and award to ACLC. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 20, 2020, the Navy issued the subject RFP in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 as a set-aside for SDVOSBs.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP sought proposals to provide contactor support services for the JTO interface training program and the United States text formatting training program.  Id.  These support services include operating a specialized Department of Defense international school and teaching the use of unique military multi-tactical data link networks (MTN).  Id.  The Navy contemplated the award of a single IDIQ contract for an ordering period of 48 months (a base plus three option years) to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government.  Id.; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 83.  The due date for proposals, as amended, was October 19, 2020.  AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 0005 at 1.[1] The RFP required offerors to submit proposals in two volumes:  volume one, non-price proposal; and volume two, price proposal.  RFP at 113.  The non-price proposal was to be evaluated using two factors:  performance approach and past performance.  Id.  The RFP provided that performance approach was more important than past performance, and the non-price proposal was more important than the price proposal.  Id. at 119.  For performance approach, offerors were required to explain how they would perform the services solicited by the RFP.[2]  Id. at 115.  For past performance, offerors were to demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state they possessed no relevant past performance.  Id.  To demonstrate relevant past performance, the RFP required offerors to identify up to three relevant contracts from the last five years.  Id.  The RFP defined “[r]elevant past performance” as contracts or efforts within the past five years that are the same, or similar to, the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the services sought by the subject RFP.[3]  RFP at 115. The RFP further provided that the agency would evaluate past performance individually and in the aggregate.  Id.