Tech Marine Business, Inc. (N0016421R30180002)

B-420872,B-420872.2,B-420872.3 Oct 14, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tech Marine Business, Inc., of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to Morgan Business Consulting (MBC), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. N00164-21-R-3018, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, for professional and engineering support services for the Navy's International Fleet Support Program Office. Tech Marine contends that the Navy's evaluation of the protester's technical proposal and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Tech Marine Business, Inc. File: B-420872; B-420872.2; B-420872.3 Date: October 14, 2022 John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., for Morgan Business Consulting, LLC, the intervenor. Timothy J. Stecker, Esq., and Emily T. Rubino, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s task order proposal under the technical factor is sustained where the agency’s evaluation documentation was inadequate to support the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation. DECISION Tech Marine Business, Inc., of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to Morgan Business Consulting (MBC), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. N00164-21-R-3018, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, for professional and engineering support services for the Navy’s International Fleet Support Program Office. Tech Marine contends that the Navy’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal and resulting award decision were improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy’s International Fleet Support Program Office (referred to as “PMS 326”) executes and administers Security Assistance Programs and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases by providing follow-on technical support to foreign navies. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) at 9.[1] The purpose of the procurement here is to provide eligible foreign navies with access to a broad range of life-cycle support and other related services associated with the acquisition, operation, upgrade, modification, modernization, and maintenance of naval vessels within their inventories. Id. The RFP was issued on June 25, 2021, to holders of the Navy’s SeaPort-NxG multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505.[2] RFP at 4, 69; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a base year with four 1-year options. RFP at 5-6; COS at 1. In general terms, the SOW required the contractor to provide 92,160 labor hours annually (plus up to a 10 percent surge) in specified labor categories to assist Navy personnel with the development, coordination, monitoring, and integration efforts in specified FMS platform readiness functional areas. RFP at 5-6; SOW at 9. The solicitation established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) technical and management (technical); (2) past performance; and (3) price (cost).[3] Id. at 79-81. The technical factor consisted of four equal elements: (1) technical capabilities and approach (technical capabilities); (2) personnel requirements; (3) staffing plan; and (4) management approach. Id. at 81. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. Six offerors, including MBC and the incumbent Tech Marine, submitted proposals by the August 2 closing date for receipt of proposals. COS at 1. A Navy technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated offerors’ non-cost proposals using adjectival rating schemes set forth in the RFP as follows: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable for the technical factor; and substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence for the past performance factor. RFP at 81-82. A separate cost evaluation team assessed cost proposals for reasonableness, balance, and realism. RFP at 84; COS at 5. On January 10, 2022, after evaluating initial proposals, the agency made a competitive range determination consisting of all offerors. COS at 6. The Navy conducted discussions with offerors, followed by the submission of final proposal revisions (FPR) by a March 9 closing date.