MP Solutions, LLC (HQ0858-22-R-0003)

B-420953,B-420953.2 Nov 21, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MP Solutions, LLC, a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-22-R-0003, issued by the Missile Defense Agency for specialized engineering analysis services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under multiple non-price factors. Additionally, the protester alleges two instances of agency disclosure of source selection information in violation of the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2107, known as the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), and contends that the disclosures provided another offeror (nTSI LLC, the intervenor) an unfair competitive advantage. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: MP Solutions, LLC File: B-420953; B-420953.2 Date: November 21, 2022 Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for the protester. David Z. Bodenhemier, Esq., and Madison Plummer, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for nTSI, LLC, the intervenor. Captain Paula F. Barr, Missile Defense Agency, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest filed while questions were pending in a pre-award debriefing from a Department of Defense agency is not premature because the Department’s enhanced debriefing procedures apply only to post-award debriefings. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposal and exclusion from the competitive range is denied because the allegations reflect the protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgments, which the record reflects were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 3. Protest alleging first instance of improper disclosure of source selection information is denied because the agency conducted a reasonable investigation and concluded that no disclosure occurred. Protest alleging second instance of improper disclosure of source selection information is dismissed as untimely where the issue was raised more than ten days after the protester knew or should have known the basis of its protest. DECISION MP Solutions, LLC, a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-22-R-0003, issued by the Missile Defense Agency for specialized engineering analysis services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under multiple non-price factors. Additionally, the protester alleges two instances of agency disclosure of source selection information in violation of the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101‑2107, known as the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), and contends that the disclosures provided another offeror (nTSI LLC, the intervenor) an unfair competitive advantage. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 5, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set‑aside using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6d, RFP at 1-2.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of engineering and technical support; studies, analysis, and evaluations; and management and professional services related to “the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) mission to develop, test, and field an integrated, layered Missile Defense System (MDS) to defend the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.” AR, Tab 4g, RFP attach. J-01 Statement of Work (SOW) at 3. The solicitation contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract with a 3-year base period, and two 2-year option periods. RFP at 51-55, 115; AR, Tab 6c, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (RFP § L) at 8. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and four non-cost factors. AR, Tab 4e, Evaluation Factors for Award (RFP § M) at 4-5. The solicitation provided that the following three of the four non-cost factors would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis: (1) information management and control plan; (2) organizational conflict of interest management plan; and (3) facility clearance. Id. The solicitation set forth that “[a]ny proposal with an Unacceptable” on one of these three factors would “not be eligible for award.” Id.