McLaughlin Research Corporation (N6660422R3012)

B-421528,B-421528.2,B-421528.3 Jun 16, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights McLaughlin Research Corporation (MRC), a small business of New London, Connecticut, protests the issuance of a task order to PURVIS Systems, Inc., (Purvis), a small business of Middletown, Rhode Island, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-22-R-3012, issued by the Department of the Navy, for full life-cycle engineering services in support of the Navy's torpedo program and related systems. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of proposals under the technical capability and cost/price factors was unreasonable, and the best-value tradeoff determination was flawed. 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: McLaughlin Research Corporation File: B-421528; B-421528.2; B-421528.3 Date: June 16, 2023 Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Annie B. Hudgins, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Issac D. Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for PURVIS Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Audra L. Medeiros, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the personnel subfactor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, even-handed, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably considered the awardee’s and the protester’s proposed use of part-time labor. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the tradeoff was reasonable, sufficiently documented, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION McLaughlin Research Corporation (MRC), a small business of New London, Connecticut, protests the issuance of a task order to PURVIS Systems, Inc., (Purvis), a small business of Middletown, Rhode Island, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-22-R-3012, issued by the Department of the Navy, for full life-cycle engineering services in support of the Navy’s torpedo program and related systems. The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical capability and cost/price factors was unreasonable, and the best-value tradeoff determination was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2022, the Navy issued the solicitation under the Navy’s SeaPort Next-Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 4, 66. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order, with cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost‑reimbursement contract line items, and a 1‑year base period of performance and four, 1‑year option periods. Id. at 41; 46-47. The Navy sought full life-cycle engineering services in support of the Navy’s torpedo program and related systems, which includes, among other things, services related to weapons, vehicles and test equipment, laboratory and test facilities, and the fabrication of prototypes. Id. at 8. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors: (1) technical capability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price.[2] Id at 146-148. The technical capability factor had two subfactors: (a) hypothetical tasks; and (b) personnel. Id. at 146. As relevant to this protest, under the personnel subfactor, the Navy would evaluate a variety of elements relating to how an offeror would staff and manage the contract, which included an evaluation of an offeror’s proposed key personnel. Id. at 146-147. Cost/price would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Id. at 148. The solicitation explained the Navy would assign one of five technical/risk ratings to each technical subfactor, and an overall rating for an offeror’s overall technical capability.[3] Id. at 149. The RFP provided that the technical capability subfactors were listed in order of importance, the technical capability factor was more important than past performance, and the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 149. The solicitation further stated that “Cost/Price will increase in importance when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.” Id. The agency received proposals from multiple offerors by the submission deadline. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2.