IAP World Services, Inc. (W91RUS19R0018)

B-419647,B-419647.3 Jun 01, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Vectrus Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS19R0018, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for operation and maintenance services in support of the Army Operational Base Communications Information Systems and its infrastructure in support of United States Central Command forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan. IAP challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, and decision to make award without conducting discussions. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. File:  B-419647; B-419647.3 Date:  June 1, 2021 Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Edward V. Arnold, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., and Bret C. Marfut, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Vectrus Systems Corporation, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Gwendolyn T.D. Franks, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable for failing to adequately address material performance requirements is denied because the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  In Department of Defense procurement valued in excess of $100 million, agency’s decision not to conduct discussions was reasonable where the record supports the agency’s determination that award on the basis of initial proposals was in the government’s best interest. DECISION IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Vectrus Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS19R0018, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for operation and maintenance services in support of the Army Operational Base Communications Information Systems and its infrastructure in support of United States Central Command forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan.  IAP challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals, and decision to make award without conducting discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on April 3, 2019, and subsequently amended 8 times, sought proposals for operations and maintenance support of U.S. government owned or leased telecommunications equipment and information systems under the operational purview of the Network Enterprise Technology Command, 160th Signal Brigade and its subordinate units in the Southwest Asia and Central Asia theaters of operation.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP, amend. No. 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS), ¶ C.2.0.  The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, with two, 60-day phase-in periods, an 8-month base period, and four, 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 4, RFP, ¶ B.2. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors:  (1) mission support/technical approach; (2) past performance; (3) cost; and (4) small business participation.  AR, Tab 4, RFP, ¶ M.1.A.  The mission support/technical approach factor was more important than the past performance factor; the past performance factor was more important than cost; and cost was more important than small business participation.  Id.  The non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id. Additionally, the mission support/technical approach factor included four subfactors:  (i) management; (ii) technical; (iii) property management; and (iv) quality control.  Id., ¶ M.3.  Among the subfactors, management was more important than technical, and technical was more important than property management and quality control.  Id.  Relevant here, the RFP provided that an offeror with individual subfactor ratings of less than “acceptable” for the management or technical subfactors, or “pass” for the property management or quality control subfactors would not move forward in the source selection process, and would not be considered for award.  Id., ¶ M.4.The RFP directed offerors to clearly demonstrate their ability to meet all of the RFP’s requirements, and warned offerors that failure to furnish full and complete information demonstrating the offeror’s abi...