SPATHE Systems, LLC (SCS210001)

B-420399,B-420399.2 Mar 18, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Spathe Systems LLC, of Tampa, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of Defense, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), to Threat Tec, LLC, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. SCS210001 to provide language, regional expertise, and cultural (LREC) program support. Spathe asserts that the agency improperly assessed significant weaknesses in Spathe's proposal. 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:  Spathe Systems, LLC File:  B-420399; B-420399.2 Date:  March 18, 2022 Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., and Diana C. Mendez, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for the protester. Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Anthony A. Anikeeff, Esq., and Lauren N. Pennington, Esq.,  Williams Mullen, P.C., for Threat Tec, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Frank Yoon, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., and Carolyn J. Fox, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably assessed significant weaknesses in protester’s proposal where the solicitation clearly required detailed information demonstrating an offeror’s experience, understanding, and capabilities, but protester’s proposal contained only summary information. DECISION Spathe Systems LLC, of Tampa, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of Defense, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), to Threat Tec, LLC, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. SCS210001 to provide language, regional expertise, and cultural (LREC) program support.  Spathe asserts that the agency improperly assessed significant weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In May 2020, USSOCOM awarded multiple indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to 46 small-business contractors, including Spathe.[1]  In March 2021, the agency issued RFP No. SCS210001 to the SCS contractors, seeking task order proposals to provide, among other things, “LREC instructors, academic support, Live Environment Training (LET) support, [and] program management.”[2]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1.  The solicitation provided that the source selection decision would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors:  (1) program management; (2) technical execution; and (3) price.[3] Section L of the RFP required, among other things, that each offeror “describe its experience providing support to the Government on efforts similar in scope to this requirement.”[4]  RFP at 3.  Consistent with this requirement, section M of the RFP advised offerors that “the Government will evaluate the experience and understanding of the Offeror’s team . . . in providing training and support services of similar scope to the [solicitation’s] requirements.[5]  Id. at 11.  On April 28, proposals were submitted by 18 offerors, including Spathe.[6]  Thereafter, Threat Tec’s and Spathe’s proposals were evaluated as follows:[7]    Threat Tec Spathe (1) Program Management Outstanding[8] Marginal[9] (2) Technical Execution Good Good (3) Total Evaluated Price $4,537,627 $4,232,270   AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 3.  In assessing a marginal rating to Spathe’s proposal under factor 1, program management, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) assessed significant weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal.  Specifically, the SSEB noted that Spathe’s proposal represented that its proposed team had “more than [redacted] years of [experience in providing] language and cultural support,” and that it “is currently performing [redacted] of all tasks in the [solicitation’s] statement of work (SOW),” see AR, Tab 7, Spathe Proposal at 2; yet, Spathe’s proposal contained virtually no additional information to support these claims.  AR, Tab 9, SSEB Report (Spathe) at 1-4.  The SSEB further noted that Spathe’s proposed team consisted of multiple subcontractors or consultants, see AR, Tab 7, Spathe Proposal at Table 2-1, but the proposal was unclear as to the roles the various team members would fill; the agency concluded that this lack of clarity increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.  AR, Tab 9, SSEB Report (Spathe) at 1-4.  Finally, the agency noted that Spathe’s proposal failed to “directly discuss their understanding of Administrative staff positions,” noting that this also increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.  Id.