Aerospace Training Systems Partners, LLC (W56HZV-20-R-L850)

B-419668,B-419668.2 Jun 22, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aerospace Training Systems Partners, LLC (ATSP), a small business of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Trideum Corporation (Trideum), a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-20-R-L850, issued by the Department of the Army, U. S. Army Materiel Command (Army), for modeling and simulation (M&S) services in support of the Army's Modeling and Simulation Office. The protester argues that the award to Trideum was improper because the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and failed to follow the evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Aerospace Training Systems Partners, LLC File:  B-419668; B-419668.2 Date:  June 22, 2021 John M. Manfredonia, Esq., Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC, for the protester. Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, PA, for Trideum Corporation, the intervenor. Arthur M. Boley, Esq., Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation is denied where, notwithstanding an apparent error, the protester fails to establish competitive prejudice. DECISION Aerospace Training Systems Partners, LLC (ATSP), a small business of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Trideum Corporation (Trideum), a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV‑20‑R‑L850, issued by the Department of the Army, U. S. Army Materiel Command (Army), for modeling and simulation (M&S) services in support of the Army’s Modeling and Simulation Office.  The protester argues that the award to Trideum was improper because the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and failed to follow the evaluation criteria.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army’s Modeling and Simulation Office (AMSO) provides training for military officers and Army civilians in M&S practices.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, RFP at 18.  On October 15, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 to provide AMSO support services including knowledge management, M&S policy and strategy analysis, and instruction for army and civilian personnel.  Id. at 1, 29‑30.  The awardee will provide, among other things, certified instructors and subject matter experts.  Id. at 30. The solicitation contemplates the award of a single fixed‑price contract with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods.[1]  RFP at 29.  The RFP provides for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors:  technical,[2] past performance,[3] and price.  Id. at 96.  The technical factor consists of two subfactors, the staffing plan and the academic support plan.  Id. at 98‑99.  For purposes of award, the technical factor is significantly more important than past performance, which is more important than price.  Id. at 98.  The RFP notified offerors that the proposal representing the best value may not be the one with the lowest price.  Id. at 96. Two offerors, ATSP and Trideum, submitted proposals by the closing date.  AR, Tab 15, Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The agency performed a compliance review and evaluated the proposals.  Id. at 3.  After reviewing the evaluations, the source selection authority (SSA) determined that discussions were not necessary.  Id.; AR, Tab 49, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 1.  The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals as follows:   ATSP Trideum Technical Marginal Good Past Performance Limited Confidence Substantial Confidence Price $21,579,100 $27,892,909   Id. at 5. The SSA independently reviewed the SSEB evaluations and conducted a comparative analysis of the proposals.  Id. at 14.  The SSA determined that Trideum’s proposal was superior to ATSP’s proposal and represented the best value to the government.  Id. at 1, 14.  The SSA concluded that there was a “meaningful distinction between the two proposals,” which warranted paying a price premium of 29 percent for Trideum’s higher‑rated proposal.  Id.