Ad Hoc Research Associates, LLC (W91249-21-R-0015)

B-420641,B-420641.2 Jul 05, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ad Hoc Research Associates, LLC (Ad Hoc), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of Havre de Grace, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Technology Leaders, Inc. (ATL), an SDVOSB, of Martinez, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91249-21-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Army. The RFP seeks experimentation support for the Cyber Battle Lab (CBL) in Fort Gordon, Georgia. Ad Hoc challenges the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and resulting award 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. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Ad Hoc Research Associates, LLC File: B-420641; B-420641.2 Date: July 5, 2022 Terry L. Elling, Esq., Kelsey Hayes, Esq., and Sean R. Belanger, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, P.A., for Advanced Technology Leaders, Inc., the intervenor. Major Michael R. Tregle, Jr., and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where discussions were meaningful and led the offeror into the general areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision. 2. Protest that agency disparately evaluated proposals is denied because the record reflects that the differences in evaluations were a result of differences in proposals. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors’ non-price proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 4. Protest of the agency’s selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is denied where the agency’s tradeoff analysis was reasonable and documented. DECISION Ad Hoc Research Associates, LLC (Ad Hoc), a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB), of Havre de Grace, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Technology Leaders, Inc. (ATL), an SDVOSB, of Martinez, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91249-21-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Army. The RFP seeks experimentation support for the Cyber Battle Lab (CBL) in Fort Gordon, Georgia. Ad Hoc challenges the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals and resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The CBL, which is part of the Cyber Capabilities Development Integration Directorate at the Army Future Command’s Future Concepts Center at Fort Gordon, is the proponent organization for concept development and experimentation in support of cyberspace operations (CO), electronic warfare (EW), Department of Defense Information Network – Army (DODIN-A), and information advantage (IA). Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, RFP at 6.[1] The CBL is responsible for developing, leveraging, and assessing technologies that enhance the Army’s ability to engage in and defend against cyberwarfare. COS at 2. The solicited effort will provide support in the form of experiments, assessments, analyses, and network support to validate proposed new technical solutions to resolve known capability gaps within the cyberwarfare modernization effort. RFP at 6. Issued on August 12, 2021, as an SDVOSB set-aside under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, the solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract under which fixed-price and cost-reimbursable task orders would be placed during a 5-year ordering period. RFP at 1, 3‑4, 7, 112‑113. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four evaluation factors: technical capability; management and staffing capability; past performance; and price. Id. at 114. Technical capability (factor 1) and management and staffing capability (factor 2) were equally important; together these factors were significantly more important than past performance (factor 3). Id. at 114‑115. All non‑price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. at 115. Factor 1 included the following three elements: (1) current and futures CO/EW/DODIN-A/IA experimentation event execution; (2) experimentation environments support and tools; and (3) battle lab collaborative simulation (BLCSE) [network operations security center (NOSC)]. Factor 2 likewise included three elements: contract management, project management, and personnel management. Id. at 114. The RFP provided that factor 1 and factor 2 would each be assigned a combined technical/risk rating based on a proposal’s evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.[2] Id. at 116.