RELYANT Global, LLC (FA489022R0021)

B-421599.8 Dec 18, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VXL Enterprises, LLC, located in Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-22-R-0021 which was issued by the Department of the Air Force to acquire operations, logistics, and training support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the past performance factor. 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: VXL Enterprises, LLC File: B-421599.8 Date: December 18, 2023 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Ashley Ruhe, Esq., Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., and Rachel M. Howard, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION VXL Enterprises, LLC, located in Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-22-R-0021 which was issued by the Department of the Air Force to acquire operations, logistics, and training support services.[1] The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the past performance factor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 4, 2022, the Air Force issued the RFP seeking proposals to provide counter-narcotics and global threats operations, logistics, and training support services. RFP at 96.[2] The RFP was issued under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 as supplemented. Id. at 108. The solicitation anticipated award of multiple IDIQ contracts with a 9-year ordering period under which task and delivery orders will be issued. Id. at 174. The RFP sought to procure the requirements using two pools under which offerors could submit proposals. Pool 1, for operations and logistics, was assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210, Facilities Support Services, and was open to large and small businesses. Id. at 96, 108. Pool 2, for training support, was assigned NAICS code 611430, Professional and Management Development Training, and was restricted to small business concerns. Id. The overall ceiling for the IDIQ contracts is $960 million. Id. at 109. This protest concerns pool 1, operations and logistics, for which VXL submitted a proposal. As relevant here, the RFP’s performance work statement (PWS) for pool 1, operations and logistics, states that the contractor will provide personnel, services, equipment, and construction as necessary to support start-up of a new, restart of a former, or conduct sustainment of an existing program, project, process, initiative, or directive. This includes procurement (purchase or lease) of necessary services, equipment and material that directly or indirectly support the mission and objective of a counter-narcotics operation. Id. at 120-121. More specifically, PWS paragraph 2.1, and its corresponding subparagraphs 2.1.1 through 2.1.7, describe the specific requirements for the required operations and logistics support services in seven categories. Id. at 120-122.[3] The RFP contemplated that IDIQ contracts would be awarded to all offerors who are deemed qualified. Id. at 108. A qualifying offeror is defined as an offeror who is determined to be responsive and responsible in accordance with FAR section 9.104-1 and who, based upon the results of an integrated assessment of proposals, receives a “substantial confidence” assessment rating in past performance and an “acceptable” rating in technical capability. Id. Although the source selection includes an integrated assessment, the RFP stated that the utilized evaluation methodology is not a tradeoff since cost/price would not be evaluated. Id. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated based on two factors: past performance; and technical capability (comprised of three subfactors). Id. at 110. Under the evaluation criteria, the past performance factor (the only factor at issue here) was more important than the technical capability factor. Id. at 108. Technical capability would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable on the subfactor and factor level. Id. at 112. Cost/price would not be evaluated; rather, cost/price will be evaluated for each individual task or delivery order. Id. at 111.