Derivative LLC (RFQ1545426)

B-420687.3,B-420687.4 May 12, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Derivative, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Dynamo Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Vienna, Virginia, under Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) request for proposals (RFP) No. 1545426, issued for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support services. The protester alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. 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: Derivative, LLC File: B-420687.3; B-420687.4 Date: May 12, 2023 Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., Christopher M. O’Brien, Esq., and Timothy M. McLister, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Colleen Eagan, Esq., Joseph Buitron, Esq., and Maurice Griffithe, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals are denied where record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal is denied where record reflects the best-value tradeoff was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and adequately documented the technical merits of the awardee’s proposal that justify payment of its associated price premium. DECISION Derivative, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Credence Dynamo Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Vienna, Virginia, under Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) request for proposals (RFP) No. 1545426, issued for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support services. The protester alleges that the agency’s evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services small business pool 1 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4-5. The solicitation sought to procure Project Manager Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PM PNT) SETA support services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1; AR, Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4.[1] “The Army’s PM PNT provides system of systems architecture and PNT products for the Army’s mounted (attached to a vehicle) and dismounted (handheld) platforms” for specialized global positioning navigation systems. COS/MOL at 5. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a 6-month base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 1-2. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors: (1) technical / management approach (technical); (2) past performance; and (3) cost.[2] Id. at 3-4. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and the two non-cost factors, combined, were more important than the cost factor. Id. at 4. For the technical evaluation factor, the RFP established two equally important subfactors with specific elements for the offerors to address: (1) phase-in transition plan (phase-in); and (2) management approach. Id. at 5-6. While proposals would not receive an overall rating for the technical factor, the evaluators would assign an adjectival rating of “outstanding,” “acceptable,” or “unacceptable” to each subfactor. Id. at 5. With respect to past performance, the solicitation established that the agency would assess its degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability based on the relevancy and quality assessments of recent contracts.[3] Id. at 6-7. As to cost, the agency would evaluate proposals for reasonableness, completeness, and realism. Id. at 7-10. Additionally, the solicitation advised that the agency “may” use the results of the realism analysis “in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations.” Id. at 8. The agency received 15 proposals and, based on initial evaluations, the agency established a competitive range of 7 offerors, including Derivative and Credence. AR, Tab 14a, Award Notice; AR, Tab 13, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 3. After conclusion of discussions, and based on evaluation of final proposal revisions, the agency issued the task order to Credence on December 16.