Systems and Proposal Engineering Company (N00178-22-R-3019)

B-421494 Jun 07, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Systems and Proposal Engineering Company (SPEC) of Manassas, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Risk Mitigation Consulting (RMC) of Destin, Florida, under task order request for proposals (RFP) N00178-22-R-3019, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, for technical support services for systems engineering and program analysis. The protester challenges the technical and cost evaluation of the awardee's proposal, and the best-value tradeoff decision. 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: Systems and Proposal Engineering Company File: B-421494 Date: June 7, 2023 Daniel Strouse, Esq., Rhina Cardenal, Esq., and Pablo Nichols, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Nikki R. Musick, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s technical and cost realism evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement law and regulation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision to select a lower technically rated proposal at a lower cost is denied where the record shows that the agency’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Systems and Proposal Engineering Company (SPEC) of Manassas, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Risk Mitigation Consulting (RMC) of Destin, Florida, under task order request for proposals (RFP) N00178-22-R-3019, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, for technical support services for systems engineering and program analysis. The protester challenges the technical and cost evaluation of the awardee’s proposal, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 9, 2022, to small business holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next-Generation (SeaPort-NxG) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The procurement was conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505 procedures. The RFP sought a contractor to support the agency’s Cyber Analysis and Mission Assurance Branch, which provides technical analysis and engineering support for mission assurance, defense and commercial critical infrastructure, and their cyber and physical dependencies. Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, RFP at 8.[1] The contractor would be responsible for providing defense critical infrastructure technical support services primarily focused on telecommunications, energy security, and control systems analysis, as well as for systems engineering and program analysis. Id. at 8-9. The RFP explained that its requirement consolidates two previous task orders--SPEC is the incumbent contractor for one of those task orders, and RMC’s subcontractor, ICF Incorporated, LLC, is the incumbent contractor for the other task order. Id. at 3; AR, exh. 5, Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at 6. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single, cost-plus-fixed-fee[2] task order to be performed over a base year period and four option years. Id. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based primarily on five factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical understanding/capability/approach (technical), workforce, management capability, past performance, and total evaluated cost.[3] Id. at 115. The RFP provided that “[a]lthough total evaluated cost will not be part of the technical evaluation, it will not be ignored[,]” and further specified that “the government may select a lower-priced, lower-rated proposal if the government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified.” Id. at 117. The technical factor included two elements: statement of work (SOW) and scenarios. Under the SOW element, the RFP provided that the government would evaluate “the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the knowledge, capability, and experience to perform the tasks outlined in the SOW, with emphasis on how adequately the offeror addresses their technical approach and capabilities to support sections of the SOW.” Id. Under the scenarios element, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the offeror’s responses and capability to produce feasible technical solutions to various scenarios described in the RFP. Id.