Delphinus Engineering, Inc. (N0025321R3004)

B-421574 Jul 05, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Delphinus Engineering, Inc., of Eddystone, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to INDUS Technology, Inc., a small business of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025321R3004, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division, Keyport, Washington, for industrial support services. 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: Delphinus Engineering, Inc. File: B-421574 Date: July 5, 2023 Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., James N. Rhodes, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Annie B. Hudgins, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Aaron S. Ralph, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for INDUS Technology, Inc., the intervenor. Robert M. Jusko, Esq., Christopher A. Lybeck, Esq., Trenton J. Bowen, Esq., and Laura A. Whitten, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under non‑cost/price and cost/price factors is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that agency engaged in misleading exchanges regarding a cost accounting standards disclosure statement is denied where the exchanges were not misleading. DECISION Delphinus Engineering, Inc., of Eddystone, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to INDUS Technology, Inc., a small business of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025321R3004, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division, Keyport, Washington, for industrial support services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on April 18, 2022, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding Navy SeaPort Next Generation (Seaport‑NxG) multiple‑award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP, which the agency amended twice, sought proposals for the provision of industrial support services to the various industrial operations, depot repair, and torpedo intermediate maintenance functions of the NUWC Division, Keyport. Id. at 1‑4; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 18. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single, cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order with a 12‑month base period and three 12‑month options, using a best‑value tradeoff methodology considering four non‑cost/price factors and cost/price. RFP at 75‑76, 140, 155. The RFP set forth the four non‑cost/price factors in descending order of importance: technical approach and capability; management approach; past performance; and small business participation. Id. at 155. The management approach factor also included three subfactors of descending importance: staffing plan and management approach; key personnel; and quality assurance plan. Id. The RFP provided that the non‑cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. Under the technical approach and capability factor, offerors were to submit a narrative demonstrating their qualifications and experience to perform all tasks and subtasks delineated in the RFP’s statement of work (SOW). Id. at 145. The RFP’s instructions advised that offerors could demonstrate their technical capability through specific examples of previous performance of similar services or, in the absence of similar efforts, a description of how the offeror intended to meet the requirements. Id. The agency would evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s technical proposal demonstrated the ability to perform the SOW’s requirements. Id. at 156. The staffing plan and management approach subfactor under the management approach factor encompassed several aspects. Id. at 145‑146, 156‑157. Relevant here, the RFP instructed offerors to submit their hiring process for timely filling vacancies, as well as specific strategies for minimizing staffing gaps. Id. at 145. Offerors also were to provide their historical recruitment cycle times, from departure to onboarding of qualified individuals. Id. The agency would evaluate this aspect for the effectiveness of the offeror’s processes for hiring and retaining personnel with the proper education, experience, qualifications, and security clearance, as well as for the feasibility and effectiveness of the offeror’s strategies for minimizing staffing gaps. Id.