WWC Global, LLC (W50NH9-21-R-0028)

B-420598 Jun 13, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights WWC Global, LLC, a small business of Lutz, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Dynamo Solutions, LLC (CDS), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, by the Department of the Army under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH921R0028 for enhanced programming and resource management services to support Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of past performance was unreasonable, and as a result, the selection decision was flawed. 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: WWC Global, LLC File: B-420598 Date: June 13, 2022 Robert A. Burton, Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Major Joseph D. Levin, and Dana J. Chase, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of past performance and selection decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION WWC Global, LLC, a small business of Lutz, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Dynamo Solutions, LLC (CDS), a small business of Vienna, Virginia, by the Department of the Army under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH921R0028 for enhanced programming and resource management services to support Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of past performance was unreasonable, and as a result, the selection decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RTOP on June 26, 2021, to small business firms with General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solutions for Integrated Services (OASIS) multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The RTOP contemplated issuance of a single fixed-price task order, with a period of performance consisting of a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTOP at 3‑23, 42.[1] The RTOP will require the contractor to provide subject matter experts necessary to support the mission of INSCOM by providing management and technical support in areas such as resource planning, programming, budgeting, execution, and oversight, as well as support for the Future-Years Defense Program (FYDP).[2] AR, Tab 3d-1, RTOP amend. 4, RTOP attach. 1, Updated Performance Work Statement at 2. The RTOP stated that award would be made utilizing a best-value tradeoff process, considering two evaluation factors, past performance and price, with past performance identified as significantly more important than price. RTOP at 85, 87. For the past performance factor, the RTOP stated that the agency would conduct a performance confidence assessment and establish a confidence assessment rating for each proposal.[3] Id. The Army received five proposals, including from CDS and WWC. COS at 6. In its final evaluation of past performance, the agency assigned CDS a rating of substantial confidence, and assigned WWC a rating of satisfactory confidence. AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 5. CDS’s total evaluated price was $73,654,063, and WWC’s total evaluated price was $93,609,602. Id. Based on the evaluation, the contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority (SSA), concluded that CDS’s proposal was the lowest price proposal and the most advantageous to the government as compared to all other proposals. Id. at 16. On February 28, 2022, the Army notified WWC that it had selected CDS for the task order award. The Army provided WWC with an enhanced debriefing, which concluded on March 10. This protest followed.[4] DISCUSSION The protester challenges several aspects of the past performance evaluation, and contends that these errors resulted in a flawed selection decision. Although we do not specifically address all of WWC’s arguments, we have fully considered all of them and find that they afford no basis on which to sustain the protest. Evaluation of WWC’s Past Performance The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable. WWC argues that the agency unreasonably concluded that the first of its two submitted contract references was not relevant. Protest at 12-18.