Choctaw Defense Munitions, LLC (W81XWH-21-R-0004)

B-420003,B-420003.2 Oct 27, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Choctaw Defense Munitions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of McAlester, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Cherokee Nation Aerospace & Defense, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81XWH-21-R-0004, issued by Department of the Army, Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity for support services for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Overseas program. The protester argues the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which led to an improper award to Cherokee. The protester also contends the awardee failed to disclose, and the agency failed to evaluate, a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI). 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:  Choctaw Defense Munitions, LLC File:  B-420003; B-420003.2 Date:  October 27, 2021 Timothy A. Furin, Esq., and Alan M. Apple, Esq., The GovCon Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Cherokee Nation Aerospace & Defense, LLC, the intervenor. Carlos S. Pedraza, Esq., and Michael R. Tregle, Jr., Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging agency failed to evaluate a potential unequal access to non-public information organizational conflict of interest is dismissed where the issue involves only private parties. DECISION Choctaw Defense Munitions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of McAlester, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to Cherokee Nation Aerospace & Defense, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81XWH-21-R-0004, issued by Department of the Army, Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity for support services for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Overseas program.  The protester argues the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which led to an improper award to Cherokee.  The protester also contends the awardee failed to disclose, and the agency failed to evaluate, a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI).  We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2021, the Army issued the RFP as a set-aside for 8(a) small businesses in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The solicitation sought support services for WIC Overseas, a program that provides families a variety of benefits, such as nutritious food, tips on how to prepare balanced meals, nutrition health screening, and access to other resources.  Id. at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a mixed fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract for a base period of 6 months, with four 12‑month option periods and one 6-month option period.  AR, Tab 3‑1, RFP at 23, 88; AR, Tab 3-13, RFP amend. 1 at 2, 9-11.  In accordance with FAR subpart 9.5, the RFP required offerors to disclose, and propose a plan to mitigate, any potential OCIs. RFP amend. 1. at 40.  The solicitation anticipated award on a best-value tradeoff basis where the non-price factors were more important than price.  Id. at 89.  Proposals were to be evaluated based on following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach, (2) management and quality control approach, (3) past performance, (4) key personnel experience, and (5) price.  Id.  For the technical approach, management and quality control approach, and key personnel experience factors, the RFP provided that the agency would assign proposals a rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.[2]  Id. at 92.  The RFP further provided that under the past performance factor, the agency would assign separate adjectival ratings for relevancy and confidence.  Id.  The due date for proposals was April 12.  Id.