Tyonek Engineering & Agile Mfg, LLC (FA812622R0001)

B-421547,B-421547.2 May 26, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tyonek Engineering and Agile Manufacturing (TEAMCOR), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA812622R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for interface test adapters and related test equipment. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposed pricing, conduct of discussions, and best-value tradeoff. We sustain 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: Tyonek Engineering & Agile Mfg, LLC File: B-421547; B-421547.2 Date: May 26, 2023 Jeffrey M. Chiow, Esq., and James A. D’Cruz, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Richard Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Total Quality Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Frank Yoon, and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposed prices is sustained where the evaluation record is internally inconsistent and inadequately documented, and, thus, inhibits our ability to review the evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable. 2. Protest contending agency conducted misleading discussions is sustained where the agency failed to lead protester into the true area of concern about its price. DECISION Tyonek Engineering and Agile Manufacturing (TEAMCOR), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA812622R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for interface test adapters and related test equipment.[1] The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposed pricing, conduct of discussions, and best-value tradeoff. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside on January 6, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3-4; AR, Tab 5a, RFP at 1; Tab 5k, RFP attach. 3, Evaluation Factors for Award at 1. The solicitation sought proposals for the design and manufacture of interface test adapters and related test equipment. RFP at 12; AR, Tab 5b, Statement of Work (SOW) at 4. The solicitation contemplated issuance of up to four fixed-price IDIQ contracts, each with a minimum guaranteed order of 1 item, a maximum ordering limit of 964 items, a 1‑year base period, and four 1-year option periods. COS at 4; RFP at 3-11, 60-61. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. AR, Tab 5k, RFP attach. 3, Evaluation Factors for Award at 1, 3. Under the technical factor, proposals would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. According to the solicitation, past performance was significantly more important than price, and that potential tradeoffs between past performance and price would only be made with technically acceptable proposals.[2] Id. at 3. With respect to price, the solicitation established that the agency would calculate a total evaluated price (TEP) for each technically acceptable proposal, and evaluate offerors’ TEPs for reasonableness (including completeness), balance, and realism. Id. at 10. The agency received ten timely proposals and one late proposal in response to the solicitation, including those submitted by the protester and the four awardees. COS at 7; AR, Tab 24a, Notice of Award at 1. After evaluating initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range of nine offerors and conducted discussions. COS at 7‑8; AR, Tab 12, Competitive Range Determination at 1, 7.