Davis Defense Group, Inc. (W911QY-21-R-JE13)

B-420481.2 Nov 07, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Davis Defense Group, of Stafford, Virginia, protests the evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable, and the resulting award of a task order to The Tauri Group, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under solicitation No. W911QY-21-R-JE13, issued by the Department of the Army for contractor support services for various Joint Program Executive Officer Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense Programs. Davis protests that the agency unreasonably assigned its proposal weaknesses and deficiencies. Davis also asserts that in evaluating Davis's offer following corrective action on an earlier protest, the Army unreasonably removed strengths that had been awarded to its 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: Davis Defense Group, Inc. File: B-420481.2 Date: November 7, 2022 Isias Alba IV, Esq., Lauren R. Brier, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and William M. Tucker, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for The Tauri Group, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Amanda Wojciechowski, Esq., and Joseph S. Beazley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably assigned a deficiency to protester’s proposal is denied where protester failed to comply with solicitation requirement. DECISION Davis Defense Group, of Stafford, Virginia, protests the evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable, and the resulting award of a task order to The Tauri Group, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under solicitation No. W911QY-21-R-JE13, issued by the Department of the Army for contractor support services for various Joint Program Executive Officer Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense Programs. Davis protests that the agency unreasonably assigned its proposal weaknesses and deficiencies. Davis also asserts that in evaluating Davis’s offer following corrective action on an earlier protest, the Army unreasonably removed strengths that had been awarded to its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on August 2, 2021, to all contract holders under the Army Contracting Command Joint Enterprise Omnibus Program, Engineering and Technical Support multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for the logistics/medical business area and associated labor categories. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3. The procurement was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation section 16.505. The Army issued the task order to Davis on January 10, 2022. On January 25, Tauri timely protested to GAO that the agency unreasonably issued the task order to Davis. On February 2, the Army notified our Office that it would take corrective action on the protest, which included re-evaluating the proposals, and making a new source selection decision. Id. at 1. Agency Report (AR), Tab 21, Notice of Corrective Action at 1. On February 8, GAO dismissed Tauri’s protest as academic. Tauri Group, Inc., B-420481, Feb. 8, 2022 (unpublished decision). Subsequently, the Army revised the solicitation, and received and evaluated new proposals. The solicitation provided that the task order would be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: (1) technical, with four elements--technical/management organization; recruitment and retention; transition plan; and management of resources; (2) past performance; and (3) price. The non-price factors were considered equal for purposes of the award determination, and each was considered significantly more important than price. AR, Tab 5, Request for Proposals (RFP), Amendment 5, at 13-16.[1] The technical elements, and the overall technical factor were assigned an adjectival rating based on an assessment of whether a proposal met the requirements, and the evaluated strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. RFP at 13. As relevant here, a deficiency was defined as a “significant failure of Offeror’s performance to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.” RFP at 14. A proposal that was rated unacceptable under the technical elements or factor was un-awardable. Id.