Millennium Corporation (RS3-21-0031)

B-421551,B-421551.2 Jun 26, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Millennium Corporation, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, under fair opportunity request for proposal (RFP) No. RS3-21-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command for systems engineering and technical assistance support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal, tradeoff analysis, and conduct of discussions. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Millennium Corporation File: B-421551; B-421551.2 Date: June 26, 2023 Milton C. Johns, Esq., Executive Law Partners, PLLC, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for QED Systems, LLC, the intervenor. Debra Talley, Esq., and David A. Machado, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to meaningfully consider cost/price before excluding the protester’s proposal from the competition is denied where any error was not prejudicial. DECISION Millennium Corporation, a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, under fair opportunity request for proposal (RFP) No. RS3-21-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command for systems engineering and technical assistance support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, tradeoff analysis, and conduct of discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on December 17, 2021, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to small businesses holding Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services multiple‑award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts issued by the Department of the Army. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1‑2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 1.[1] The RFP sought proposals for the provision of systems engineering and technical assistance support services to the project manager, terrestrial sensors, primarily at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, with additional performance at various other locations. COS/MOL at 1‑2; RFP at 2‑3; AR, Tab 6, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4; AR, Tab 10, Combined Task Order Decision Document (TODD) at 2. As stated in the RFP, this office’s “portfolio of state‑of‑the‑art sensors and networks gather, integrate, and disseminate full‑motion video, acoustic, seismic, laser, radar, and target data, ultimately acting as the ever‑present ‘eyes of the battlefield.’” PWS at 4. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single task order including cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and cost no-fee contract line items, a 12‑month period of performance, and four 12‑month option periods. RFP at 1‑2. Award was to be made using a best‑value tradeoff methodology considering two non‑cost/price factors--technical and past performance--and cost/price. Id. at 24. The technical factor was significantly more important than past performance and cost/price, both individually and when combined. Id. The RFP further advised that the past performance factor was slightly more important than cost/price. Id. As to the technical factor, the RFP provided that proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings of high, some, or low confidence, corresponding to the level of confidence the agency had that the offeror understood the requirement, proposed a sound approach, and would be successful in performing without government intervention. Id. at 26‑27. Under the past performance factor, the agency would assign adjectival ratings of substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no confidence, corresponding to the agency’s expectation of successful performance based on the offeror’s performance record on recent and relevant contracts. Id. at 29. Relevant here, the RFP advised offerors that the agency was competing the requirement pursuant to the fair opportunity ordering requirements of FAR subpart 16.5, and further that “the competition requirements of FAR Part 6 and the policies and procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3” did not apply. Id. at 1.