DKMT Consulting, LLC (1131PL22RD21271)

B-421223 Jan 12, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DKMT Consulting, LLC, a small business of Orefield, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Nuclear Economics Consulting Group (NECG), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1131PL22RD21271, issued by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency for desk study reports on civil nuclear energy projects. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: DKMT Consulting, LLC File: B-421223 Date: January 12, 2023 Donald Harker, DKMT Consulting, LLC, for the protester. Edward Kee, Nuclear Economics Consulting Group, for the intervenor. Garth Hibbert, Esq., and John C. Mantini, Esq., U.S. Trade and Development Agency, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposal reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION DKMT Consulting, LLC, a small business of Orefield, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Nuclear Economics Consulting Group (NECG), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1131PL22RD21271, issued by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency for desk study reports on civil nuclear energy projects. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP as a set-aside for small business on August 17, 2022. The RFP is a combined synopsis/solicitation of commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 12.6 and 13.1. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1.[2] These subparts refer to the FAR’s procedures for the solicitation of commercial products and services and simplified acquisition procedures, respectively. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the preparation of reports on proposals the agency receives for global civil nuclear energy project planning activities. RFP at 14. These reports assist the agency in deciding whether to fund project planning activities in the civil nuclear energy sector. Id. The contract will be performed over a 2-year period. Id. at 23. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government considering technical, past performance, and price factors. Id. at 50, 53. The two non-price factors were equally important and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The technical factor consisted of two subfactors: relevant technical experience and expertise; and relevant financing experience and expertise. Id. The first subfactor required in relevant part that the offeror “shall have significant expertise in the civil nuclear energy sector related to regulations for both traditional and new civil nuclear energy technologies and the development of civil nuclear energy regulatory infrastructure.” Id. The second subfactor required in relevant part that the offeror “shall have at least 10 years of relevant experience specifically related to the financing of civil nuclear energy projects that demonstrate the capacity to evaluate projects involving large light water reactor and Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technologies.” Id. These subfactors were of equal importance; the technical factor and its subfactors were to be evaluated using adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 51-52. DKMT and NECG timely submitted proposals. DKMT’s proposal received ratings of acceptable under both technical subfactors, for an overall technical rating of acceptable. AR, Tab 9, Technical Evaluation at 2. The technical evaluator concluded that while DKMT proposed a strong technical team, its proposal merited a rating of acceptable because it did not adequately address several key competencies required to perform the requirement. Id. Under the past performance factor, DKMT’s proposal received a rating of satisfactory confidence. The technical evaluator noted that of the four past performance references DKMT submitted, only two included the required past performance questionnaires (PPQs), and only one of the two was found to be relevant.[3] Id. at 6. NECG’s proposal received ratings of outstanding under both technical subfactors and an overall technical rating of outstanding. Id. at 2. NECG’s proposal also received a rating of substantial confidence under the past performance factor. Id. The technical evaluator recommended that NECG be awarded the contract because its technical proposal was superior and there was substantial confidence that NECG could successfully perform the contract.