DPRA Inc. (FA8730-23-Q-B004)

B-421592 Jul 17, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DPRA, Inc., a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Netrist Solutions, LLC, of Charleston, South Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8730-23-Q-B004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for consolidated air mobility planning system (CAMPS) sustainment, operations and maintenance services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and the resulting 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: DPRA, Inc. File: B-421592 Date: July 17, 2023 Ronald Perlman, Esq., Richard Ariel, Esq., and Sean Belanger, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., and Issac D. Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Netrist Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Frank Yoon, Siobhan K. Donahue, Esq., Catherine J. McSwain, Esq., and Sean M. Hannaway, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., Alexa Stechschulte, and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ professional employee compensation plans is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value determination is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s slightly better technical quotation did not warrant a significantly higher price premium, and therefore reasonably made award to the lower-priced vendor. DECISION DPRA, Inc., a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Netrist Solutions, LLC, of Charleston, South Carolina, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8730-23-Q-B004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for consolidated air mobility planning system (CAMPS) sustainment, operations and maintenance services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and the resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 27, 2022, the agency issued the RFQ, seeking quotations for sustainment, operations and maintenance services of CAMPS, which is a Mobility Air Forces (MAF) Command and Control (C2) program “that provides seamless airlift and tanker planning, scheduling, and analysis during peacetime, crisis, contingency and wartime operations.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation was issued as a small business set-aside, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding General Services Administration multiple award schedule contracts, special item number 5415S, for information technology professional services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, RFQ at 1-2. The RFQ anticipated issuance of a single time-and-materials (T&M) task order, on a best-value tradeoff basis, for a base year and four 1-year option periods.[1] RFQ at 1-2. Vendors were advised that the quotations would be evaluated on the basis of two factors: technical and price. AR, Tab 7c, RFQ Evaluation Criteria at 5. The technical factor comprised three subfactors: (1) functional support desk; (2) MAF C2 knowledge; and (3) parallel operations and capability fielding. Id. at 5-6. MAF C2 knowledge was the most important subfactor, followed by the two remaining subfactors, which were each of equal importance.[2] For purposes of award, the technical subfactors, when combined, were significantly more important than price; price was, however, to “contribute substantially to the selection decision.” Id. at 5. The RFQ advised that the agency would employ a two-step evaluation approach. Id. at 4. In step 1, the agency would evaluate vendors’ written submissions detailing their functional support desk approaches to two sample problem scenarios, i.e., the functional support desk subfactor. Id. at 4-5. Following the agency’s evaluation of the step 1 submissions, the Air Force would invite the four or five vendors determined to be the most advantageous to the government to continue to step 2. Id. at 5. In step 2, vendors would submit price quotations, and participate in oral presentations to demonstrate their knowledge and expertise of MAF C2, and parallel operations and capability fielding, i.e., the other two technical subfactors. Id. Relevant here, the solicitation advised that the agency would evaluate the realism of vendors’ professional employee compensation plans, in accordance with FAR provision 52.222-46. Id. at 7.