Two Knights Defense, LLC (HQ0858-22-R-0002)

B-421053 Dec 16, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Two Knights Defense, LLC (2KD), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) award of a contract to Five Stones Research Corporation (Five Stones), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-22-R-0002, to provide information technology (IT) services to support MDA's mission. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of 2KD's proposal with regard to past performance, cost/price, and mission capability. 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: Two Knights Defense, LLC File: B-421053 Date: December 16, 2022 Benjamin R. Little, Esq., Dentons Sirote PC, for the protester. Jon D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale P.C., for Five Stones Research Corporation, the intervenor. Major Nhu T. Tran, Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated protester’s past performance proposal, including relevancy assessments that reflected the protester’s failure to provide sufficient detail regarding its prior activities. 2. Agency was reasonable in upwardly adjusting protester’s proposed cost/price where protester failed to provide a convincing explanation regarding labor rates that were below the solicitation’s benchmark rates. 3. Agency reasonably concluded that protester’s proposal met, but did not exceed, the solicitation requirements with regard to two mission capability subfactors. DECISION Two Knights Defense, LLC (2KD), of Huntsville, Alabama,[1] protests the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) award of a contract to Five Stones Research Corporation (Five Stones), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-22-R-0002, to provide information technology (IT) services to support MDA’s mission.[2] The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of 2KD’s proposal with regard to past performance, cost/price, and mission capability. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 28, 2021, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside, seeking proposals to provide IT and cybersecurity management services,[3] and advising offerors that the agency intended to award a single, cost-reimbursement contract without conducting discussions. AR, Tab 4e, RFP § M at 3. The solicitation further provided that the source selection decision would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors: mission capability, past performance, and cost/price.[4] With regard to the best-value tradeoff, the solicitation provided that past performance was more important than mission capability, and that the non-cost/price factors combined were more important than cost/price. Id. at 5. With regard to the mission capability factor, the solicitation established four subfactors: (1) cyberspace mission support activities; (2) network operations support; (3) architecture and engineering; and (4) human capital management.[5] The solicitation provided that, under each subfactor, proposals would be assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and further stated that the agency would not roll up the subfactor ratings into an overall mission capability rating. AR, Tab 4e, RFP § M at 5‑10. With regard to the most important factor, past performance, the solicitation permitted offerors to identify up to seven recent contracts to be evaluated,[6] and stated that the agency would: make relevancy assessments (very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant) for each contract;[7] perform quality of performance assessments (exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory) for prior contracts that were considered at least somewhat relevant; and assign an overall past performance rating (substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence or no confidence) for each proposal. Id. at 13-16. Of particular relevance to this protest, the solicitation contained a past performance information (PPI) form that offerors were required to submit for each prior contract identified in their proposals.[8] AR, Tab 3x, PPI Form. Section C of the PPI form directed offerors to “briefly describe” the scope of the prior contract and highlight the portion the offeror considered “most relevant.” Id. at 2.