DigiFlight, Inc. (TORFQ-2020P-01)

B-419590,B-419590.2 May 24, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DigiFlight Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of an order to Navigator Development Group, Inc. (NDGI), a small business of Enterprise, Alabama, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 202P-01 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Redstone, for advisory and assistance services. The protester contends that the agency evaluated quotations in a disparate manner, and conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  DigiFlight, Inc. File:  B-419590; B-419590.2 Date:  May 24, 2021 Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Richard J.R. Raleigh, Jr., Esq., and Christopher L. Lockwood, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, PA, for the protester. David C. Sabine, Esq., and Alexa B. Bryan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging disparate treatment is sustained where the agency assessed a strength in the awardee’s quotation but not in the protester’s for substantively indistinguishable features of the vendors’ employee retention plans. DECISION   DigiFlight Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, prot>ests the issuance of an order to Navigator Development Group, Inc. (NDGI), a small business of Enterprise, Alabama, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 202P-01 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Redstone, for advisory and assistance services.  The protester contends that the agency evaluated quotations in a disparate manner, and conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest.  BACKGROUND On June 15, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation to small business vendors with whom it had previously established blanket purchase agreements (BPA) under the vendors’ federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 0, Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2‑3.  The agency conducted the procurement utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405.  AR, Tab 7, RFQ at 1.[1]  The solicitation sought quotations for programmatic support to be provided to the agency’s Program Executive Office Aviation Headquarters (PEO AVN) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, which is responsible for the “overall direction and guidance of the development, acquisition, testing, system integration, product improvement, and fielding of all assigned aviation systems.”  AR, Tab 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  Specifically, the solicitation established that: The contractor shall provide programmatic support to PEO AVN necessary to implement the acquisition, test and evaluation, production, deployment, and logistics strategies for PEO AVN systems.  The contractor shall provide input, advice, and recommendations to PEO AVN or Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) formed to provide expeditious resolution or mitigation of programmatic issues and risks for PEO AVN programs.  The contractor shall provide all labor to perform programmatic support in monitoring, assessing, coordinating, analyzing, and integrating component programs/activities, including briefings/presentations and agendas for the total life cycle of the systems. AR, Tab 2, PWS at 1. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single order with a mixture of fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, and time-and-materials items for a 6-month base period, one 6‑month option period, and four 1-year option periods.  RFQ at 4, 6.  The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following two non-price evaluation factors:  (1) technical expertise; and (2) risk mitigation and management.  AR, Tab 8, Evaluation Criteria at 1.  The solicitation explained that the two non-price factors were of equal importance to one another and that each individually was more important than price.  Id.  With respect to price, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate vendors’ quoted prices for reasonableness and realism.  Id. at 4-5.  The solicitation established four possible adjectival ratings under the two non-price factors--outstanding, good, acceptable, and unacceptable.  AR, Tab 8, Evaluation Criteria at 2-4.  As relevant here, the solicitation defined a rating of acceptable as applying to a quotation that met the requirements, indicated an adequate understanding of the requirements or approach, had either offsetting strengths and weaknesses or weaknesses that would “have little or no impact on contract performance,” and had a moderate risk of unsuccessful performance.  Id.