American Electronics, Inc. (N00421-20-R-3002)

B-419659,B-419659.2 May 25, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Electronics, Inc. (Amelex), of California, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to PSI Pax, Inc., also of California, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042120R3002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for technical, engineering, and management services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the protester's and the awardee's proposals. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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:  American Electronics, Inc. File:  B-419659; B-419659.2 Date:  May 25, 2021 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Nicholas L. Perry, Esq., and Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for PSI Pax, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher B. Erly, Esq., Brian W. Ritter, Jr., Esq., Thomas J. Florip, Esq., and Travis D. Van Ort, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation is denied in part where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and dismissed in part where the protest allegation does not include sufficient information to establish the likelihood that the agency violated the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   American Electronics, Inc. (Amelex), of California, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to PSI Pax, Inc., also of California, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042120R3002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for technical, engineering, and management services.  The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and the awardee’s proposals. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2020, the agency issued the RFP, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16, to woman-owned small business holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (Seaport NxG) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple-award contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP.[1]  The RFP seeks a contractor to provide technical, professional, and management support services to the Air Traffic Control Systems Division in support of the Navy and other Department of Defense programs.  Id. at 22. The RFP contemplates the issuance of a single task order, with cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursement line items, for a base year, four 1‑year option periods, and a possible 6-month extension.  RFP at 12.  The RFP provided for award to the offeror “whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the government,” based on three factors listed in descending order of importance:  technical, past performance, and price.  Id. at 127-128.  The RFP advised that the technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price; and that the importance of the price factor would increase “commensurably with the degree of equality” among the results of the evaluation of the non-price factors.  Id. at 128. The technical factor included three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  understanding of the work/sample tasks, workforce, and management plan.  RFP at 128.  Of relevance here, under the management plan subfactor, offerors were required to submit a transition plan.  Id. at 117-118, 129.  Proposals would be assigned overall technical adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 129.  Among other things, proposals could also be assessed strengths, which the RFP defined as:  “[a]n aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.”  Id.