Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (N0017822R3013)

B-421320 Mar 20, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (RMC), a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Solutions Development Corporation (SDC), a small business of King George, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0017822R3013, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for technical and support services related to Navy sensor systems. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal, applied unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to assign certain strengths to the protester's proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Resource Management Concepts, Inc. File: B-421320 Date: March 20, 2023 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. James N. Rhodes, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Solutions Development Corporation, the intervenor. Theresa A. Cortese-Fusaro, Esq., and Nikki Musick, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging various aspects of an agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (RMC), a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Solutions Development Corporation (SDC), a small business of King George, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0017822R3013, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for technical and support services related to Navy sensor systems. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal, applied unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to assign certain strengths to the protester’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 17, 2022, the agency issued the RFP pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 to small business holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple‑award contracts. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 3, 77.[1] The solicitation seeks a contractor to provide technical and support services for efforts related to Navy sensor systems in the following areas: information technology, electronics assembly and testing, program financial management, technical writing and editing, operations support, and configuration management. Id. at 2. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a task order with cost-plus-fixed-fee line items for a base year, four 1-year option periods, and a possible 6-month extension. RFP at 2. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical understanding/capability/approach, workforce, management capability, past performance, and total evaluated cost. Id. at 97. The technical factor included two elements, which were not separately rated: statement of work (SOW) and scenarios. Id. at 97-98. The second factor, workforce, also included two elements that were not separately rated: resumes of key personnel and staffing plan/matrix. Id. at 98. The RFP stated that each factor would receive its own adjectival rating and informed offerors that strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies would be noted in the evaluation. Id. at 96. The solicitation advised that the technical factor was significantly more important than the workforce factor, and that the first four factors together were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 97. As relevant here, for the technical factor, the solicitation cautioned offerors against “merely reiterating the objectives or reformulating” the requirements specified in the solicitation, warning that such proposals would be “deemed unacceptable and ineligible for award.” RFP at 81. Under the technical factor’s “scenarios” element, the solicitation stated that evaluators would consider an offeror’s capability to produce “feasible technical solutions” to two scenarios described in the solicitation, and that the “validity and thoroughness” of the responses would be evaluated with regard to whether they demonstrated the offeror’s understanding of, and ability to perform, the solicitation requirements. Id. at 98.