Technica LLC (SP3300-21-R-5005)

B-420679 Jun 21, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technica, LLC, of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Amentum Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, the incumbent contractor, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300-21-R-5005, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for warehousing and distribution services. Technica alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Amentum's past performance. 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: Technica LLC File: B-420679 Date: June 21, 2022 Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Bret C. Marfut, Esq., and Zachary F. Jacobson, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester. Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Edmund M. Amorosi, Esq., and Jonathan K. Keller, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Amentum Services, Inc., the intervenor. Timothy J. Ryan, Esq., and Kevin F. Phillips, Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to consider a negative reference of past performance for the awardee is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the negative past performance as not providing helpful information. DECISION Technica, LLC, of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Amentum Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, the incumbent contractor, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300‑21‑R‑5005, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for warehousing and distribution services. Technica alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Amentum’s past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 29, 2021, DLA issued the RFP to procure warehousing and distribution services for DLA Distribution, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1, 13. The RFP contemplated the award of a hybrid indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract with fixed-price, cost reimbursable, and cost-plus-fixed-fee line items to be performed over a 5-year ordering period. AR, Tab 3, RFP, amend. 7, attach. 3 at 8. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost/price and the following technical factors, listed in descending order of importance: performance confidence assessment; management approach; staffing approach; transition and sustainment of operations approach; and small business participation commitment document. RFP, amend. 7, attach. 3 at 77-78. When combined, the technical factors were significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. at 78. Three offerors submitted proposals prior to the December 8, 2021, close of the solicitation period. AR, Tab 5, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 8. After reviewing proposals, DLA established a competitive range consisting of Amentum and Technica, and then conducted discussions with both offerors. Id. at 9. Amentum and Technica submitted final proposal revisions on March 8, 2022. Id. DLA’s evaluation produced the following results:   Amentum Technica Performance Confidence Assessment Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Management Approach Good Acceptable Staffing Approach Acceptable Acceptable Transition and Sustainment of Operations Approach Acceptable Acceptable Small Business Participation Commitment Document Outstanding Outstanding Cost/Price $88,465,620 $88,390,604   AR, Tab 5, SSDD at 10. When conducting the tradeoff analysis, the source selection authority (SSA) compared the proposals under each of the evaluation factors. Id. at 11‑22. Ultimately, the SSA concluded that Amentum’s proposal represented a better value because Amentum provided a superior management approach and equivalent value under the other factors. Id. at 21-22. The SSA also noted that Amentum’s superior management approach warranted the slightly higher cost. Id. at 22. As a result, the SSA selected Amentum’s proposal for award. After learning that its proposal was unsuccessful, Technica filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Technica argues that DLA unreasonably assigned an adjectival rating of “substantial confidence” to Amentum’s proposal under the performance confidence assessment factor. Protest at 10. Specifically, Technica asserts that DLA failed to consider reasonably Amentum’s alleged record of poor performance as a major subcontractor on a prior relevant contract (i.e., the “San Diego I” contract). Id. at 12; Comments at 3. DLA responds that it reasonably considered the alleged poor performance but that the performance issues could not reasonably be apportioned between the prime contractor and Amentum.