Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC (FA701422R00370001)

B-421178 Jan 06, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC (BMA), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to Delta Solutions & Strategies, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) No. FA7014-22-R-0037, issued by the United States Space Force (USSF) for advisory and assistance services. The protester contends that the evaluation of BMA's proposal was unreasonable because the evaluation relied on unstated evaluation criteria. 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: Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC File: B-421178 Date: January 6, 2023 Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Joshua Duvall, Esq., and Nicolas Greer, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. William B. Phillips, Esq., and John Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Delta Solutions & Strategies, LLC, the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and James B. Leighton, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, 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 the protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and did not employ unstated evaluation criteria. DECISION Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC (BMA), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a task order to Delta Solutions & Strategies, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) No. FA7014-22-R-0037, issued by the United States Space Force (USSF) for advisory and assistance services. The protester contends that the evaluation of BMA’s proposal was unreasonable because the evaluation relied on unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The FOPR, issued on August 1, 2022, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, was issued under the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated services (OASIS) governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) for small businesses. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, FOPR at 1. The FOPR sought advisory and assistance services for the United States Space Force Headquarters and Office of the Chief of Space Operations (CSO), Chief Strategy and Resourcing Office in the National Capital Region. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. Specifically, the performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to provide services in the following categories to support Space Force-sponsored space missions and space-related efforts: (1) management and professional services; (2) enterprise integration, architecture/requirements development, and analysis; (3) Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution (PPB&E) support; (4) strategy development and integration; (5) administration and management of service-level security cooperation programs, policies, strategies, plans, guidance, and support to global defense posture planning; (6) develop service-level space Security Cooperation (SC) policy and programs, SC engagement plans, and SC Assessment, Monitoring, Evaluation (AM&E) reports in coordination with SAF/IA [Secretary of the Air Force, International Affairs]; (7) determining future service force requirements, formulating policies and technical standards; (8) advocating for changes to training and professional military education to meet future needs; (9) formulating policies for experimentation and war-gaming to test service concepts; (10) building partnership agreements with academic institutions to advocate for research and professional development opportunities; and (11) formulating policies for Service lessons learned. AR, Tab 14, PWS at 3. The agency contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for one base year, and four 1-year options. FOPR at 1. Task order award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: prior experience, technical capability, and price. Id. at 9. The evaluation was to be conducted in multiple steps. During Step 1, the agency would evaluate offerors’ prior experience on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 7‑8. All offerors that received a rating of acceptable would continue to Step 2, where the agency would evaluate the offerors’ technical capability.[1] Id. at 8. Offerors that received ratings of acceptable or better under the technical capability factor would continue to Step 3, where the Space Force would evaluate offerors’ proposed pricing. Id. During Step 4, the agency would perform a best-value tradeoff analysis, where technical capability was considered more important than price. Id.