EAGLES, LLC (W912L821R0003)

B-420231,B-420231.2 Jan 05, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Executive Acquisitions & Global Logistic, Engineering Services, LLC (EAGLES), of Oxon Hill, Maryland, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC (Day), of Davenport, Iowa, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912L8-21-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for commercial training support services for bombing prevention training for the Army Interagency Training and Education Center, in St. Albans, West Virginia and other locations. EAGLES argues that the Army misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  Executive Acquisitions & Global Logistic, Engineering Services, LLC File:  B-420231; B-420231.2 Date:    January 5, 2022 Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., Jamie C. Lipsitz, Esq., and Jennifer E. Andrews, Esq., Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, for the protester.  Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Major Weston E. Borkenhagen, Major Gregory T. O’Malley, and Captain Timothy M. McLister, Department of the Army, for the agency.  Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.  DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows the evaluations of both proposals were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and the source selection authority made a reasonable judgment in selecting the awardee’s lower-rated and lower-priced proposal for award under criteria that made the price/cost factor approximately equal in importance to the non-price factors.  DECISION Executive Acquisitions & Global Logistic, Engineering Services, LLC (EAGLES), of Oxon Hill, Maryland, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC (Day), of Davenport, Iowa, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912L8-21-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for commercial training support services for bombing prevention training for the Army Interagency Training and Education Center, in St. Albans, West Virginia and other locations.  EAGLES argues that the Army misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 19, 2021, sought proposals from historically underutilized business zone small businesses to provide commercial training support nationwide through both virtual instructor-led training and face-to-face training modules, which were described in a performance work statement (PWS).  The RFP anticipated the award of a single fixed-price contract for a base year and four option years.  The PWS described the requirements for training classes, one of which was collecting and reporting specific information in “after action reports” for certain training courses, which were to be distributed to specific recipients.  In particular, PWS ¶ 5.2.6.5 provided:  After Action Report (AAR) Submission:  The Contractor, if assigned as Alternate Instructor for a training event, shall submit the AARs electronically via email to the OBP [office of bombing prevention] Training mailbox; Cc: MTT [mobile training team] Team Lead, MTT Team NCOIC [non-commissioned officer in charge], Training Operations Section Lead, Quality Assurance representative, and the MTT Primary Instructor, within 5 days from the course end date.  The AAR shall include a summary of the lessons learned and participants’ reactions, instructor comments, significant issues and recommendations as identified by the participants or the instructor, and performance metrics as directed by AITEC [Army interagency training and education center]. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Conformed RFP at 65.  The contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal the agency determined was the best value under three factors:  technical, past performance, and price/cost.  Id. at 84.  In assessing which proposal provided the best value, the RFP specified that the technical and past performance factors, when combined, would be approximately equal in importance to the price/cost factor.  Id.  The technical factor was divided into three subfactors:  capability and experience; employee attraction, retention, and management plan; and compensation plan.  Id.