Greystones Consulting Group, Inc. (FA8806-23-R-0001)

B-421607,B-421607.2 Jul 18, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Greystones Consulting Group, LLC (Greystones), a woman-owned small business of Washington, DC, protests the agency's decision not to award the firm a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA880623R0001, issued by the United States Space Force for data services support. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal. 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: Greystones Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-421607; B-421607.2 Date: July 18, 2023 Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Erika L. Whelan-Retta, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Christian H. Robertson II, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the firm’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s terms, and did not employ unstated evaluation criteria. DECISION Greystones Consulting Group, LLC (Greystones), a woman-owned small business of Washington, DC, protests the agency’s decision not to award the firm a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA880623R0001, issued by the United States Space Force for data services support. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on January 17, 2023, in accordance with the commercial items procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the negotiated procurement procedures of part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Request for Proposals (RFP) at 155.[1] The solicitation, issued on an unrestricted, full and open competitive basis, sought to acquire data services support. Id. at 1, 144. Specifically, the agency requested proposals to provide a commercial solution with capabilities supporting an integrated Data-as-a-Service platform in support of Space Command and Control operations. Id. at 131. The solicitation required the contractor to assist in the aggregation of data by providing enterprise data storage and data management solutions capable of operating in secure environments, and providing data products and advanced analytics to the broader space community. Id. The RFP contemplated awarding multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with 5-year ordering periods. Id. at 144, 175. The agency intended to make an award “to each qualifying Offeror,” explaining that while it anticipated making 20 awards, the agency reserved the right to make more or less than the projected number of awards. Id. at 159. The solicitation provided that award would be based on two evaluation factors: (1) commercial software solution, and (2) technical approach. Id. at 158-59. The RFP established a “gated approach,” wherein the commercial software solution factor would be initially evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 145, 158. Offers that did not receive a rating of acceptable under the commercial software solution factor would not proceed and be evaluated under the technical approach factor--similarly, on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis. Id. at 158-59. Only offerors with an acceptable rating under the technical approach factor would be eligible for award. Id. at 159. Price was not a consideration for the award of the IDIQ contract; instead, the agency would “evaluate price at the delivery order level.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5-6; AR, Tab 8, Questions & Answers (Q&A) at 9. Thirty-four offerors submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2. After evaluating proposals, the agency decided to make award to 18 qualifying offerors. Id. at 2, 9. On March 24, 2023, the agency informed Greystones that it had not been selected for award. AR, Tab 13, Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. Greystones thereafter requested and received a debriefing. AR, Tab 16, Post-Award Debriefing at 1-4. In the debriefing, the agency informed Greystones that its proposal had been evaluated as unacceptable under the technical approach factor, thereby rendering it ineligible for award. Id. at 1. This protest followed on April 10. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable. Protest at 5-8. In the protester’s view, not only does its proposed solution satisfy all of the solicitation’s requirements, but the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its technical evaluation. Id.