Morgan Business Consulting, LLC (N0003921R3028)

B-421509 Jun 12, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Morgan Business Consulting, LLC (MBC), a veteran-owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) of McLean, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. N0003921R3028. The Department of Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command issued the FOPR for support services for the Navy's international command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) programs. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated MBC's proposal and made a flawed award 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. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Morgan Business Consulting, LLC File: B‑421509 Date: June 12, 2023 Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Aime J. Joo, Esq., and Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for the protester. Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., the intervenor. Mai Oanh P. Ho, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall‑McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s selection of a higher‑rated, higher‑priced proposal is denied where the record reflects the agency evaluated proposals reasonably, and that the evaluations and source selection decision were consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Morgan Business Consulting, LLC (MBC), a veteran‑owned small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) of McLean, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. N0003921R3028. The Department of Navy, Naval Information Warfare Systems Command issued the FOPR for support services for the Navy’s international command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) programs. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated MBC’s proposal and made a flawed award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 17, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of the Naval Sea Systems Command Seaport NxG multiple‑award contract, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, FOPR at 2.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for the integrated international support services (IISS) task order for the program executive office for the C4I international integration program office (PMW 740). AR, Tab 1, FOPR attach.1, Statement of Work (SOW) at 7. PMW 740 promotes interoperability with coalition and friendly partner nations through foreign military sales (FMS) and other security cooperation processes that procure, integrate, install, test, train, and support integrated C4I capabilities. Id. The Navy’s requirement for “[s]upport services include[s] administrative and executive business processes and address[es] the full lifecycle of the security cooperation process, including Pre‑Letter of Request (LOR) efforts, FMS case development, case execution, case reconciliation, and case closure.” Id. at 8. The IISS task order is a “follow‑on” procurement of the small business set-aside task order awarded to MBC for almost $40 million in February 2019. AR, Tab 2, Individual Streamlined Acquisition Plan with Services at 2. While the scope of the requirement here may have some similarities to the previously awarded task order, PMW 740’s portfolio has greatly expanded--with the current contract requirements more than tripling in dollar value (to over $140 million) and increasing in scope to include cybersecurity requirements, as well as more tasks for currently provided services. Id. at 5‑7; AR, Tab 28, Fair Opportunity Decision Authority (FODA) Declaration at 1. The solicitation contemplated a single best‑value award of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order, consisting of a base year, four 1‑year option periods, and a 6‑month extension period. Conformed FOPR at 10, 44. The agency would consider the following non‑cost factors, listed in descending order of importance, in its tradeoff analysis: (1) technical capabilities; (2) management approach; (3) past performance; and (4) small business participation. Id. at 58. The non‑cost factors, when combined, were considered significantly more important than cost/price. Id. A cost/technical tradeoff analysis would be conducted between the non‑cost and cost/price factors. Id. The solicitation also provided that cost/price would become more important, and may become the determining factor, in relation to the equality of the technical capabilities of the proposals.