Academy Leadership, LLC (70CMSD21R00000001)

B-419705.3,B-419705.4 Apr 13, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Academy Leadership, LLC, of Juno Beach, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Gettysburg Addresses, Inc. d/b/a The Lincoln Leadership Institute (Lincoln), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CMSD21R00000001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for leadership-focused training. The protester challenges the agency's best-value tradeoff decision, as well as various aspects of the agency's technical evaluation; asserts that its proposal should have received a higher confidence rating under the past performance factor; and contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated both the protester's and awardee's sample training presentations. 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: Academy Leadership, LLC File: B-419705.3; B-419705.4 Date: April 13, 2022 Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thomas O. Mason, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for the protester. Alan Grayson, Esq., for Gettysburg Addresses, Inc., the intervenor. Javier A. Farfan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the awardee’s proposal compared favorably to the protester’s because the two proposals were different, not because they were evaluated disparately; and where the agency reasonably found that although the protester resolved the weaknesses identified in its proposal, the awardee’s proposal was still superior. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and where the agency properly considered past performance in the best-value tradeoff decision. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably considered the substance of answers given during sample training presentations is denied where the agency evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s source selection rationale was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Academy Leadership, LLC, of Juno Beach, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Gettysburg Addresses, Inc. d/b/a The Lincoln Leadership Institute (Lincoln), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CMSD21R00000001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for leadership-focused training. The protester challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, as well as various aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation; asserts that its proposal should have received a higher confidence rating under the past performance factor; and contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated both the protester’s and awardee’s sample training presentations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on October 29, 2020, as a total small business set-aside, under the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 1-year base period of performance and four option years, for leadership-focused Gettysburg staff rides designed for ICE employees.[1] AR, Tab 2, RFP at 1. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, sample training presentation, past performance, and price. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 4. The RFP advised that if two or more proposals were equivalent in non-price factors, “award will be made to the lower priced proposal.” Id. The RFP stated that the agency reserved the right to hold discussions if the contracting officer deemed it necessary. Id. at 7. As relevant here, the technical capability factor was comprised of two elements: (1) technical approach/logistical capabilities and (2) staffing. RFP at 5. The first element had three functional areas: planning; execution; and logistics and project management. Id. Neither the sub-elements nor the functional areas would receive individual ratings; only one overall confidence rating would be assigned to proposals under the technical capability evaluation factor. Id.