Arcticom LLC (SP3300-22-R-5006)

B-421639.4 Mar 13, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arcticom, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Lakota Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Sitka, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300-22-R-5006, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for labor and logistics support services. Arcticom challenges both the evaluation of the awardee's past performance and the agency's best-value tradeoff. 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: Arcticom LLC File: B-421639.4 Date: March 13, 2024 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Robert K. Palmer, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of the relevancy of awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and conducted in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the record reflects that the agency reasonably found that protester’s slightly superior technical proposal was not worth its higher price. DECISION Arcticom, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Lakota Solutions, LLC, a small disadvantaged business of Sitka, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300-22-R-5006, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for labor and logistics support services. Arcticom challenges both the evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and the agency’s best‑value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on August 16, 2022, seeking labor and logistics support services at DLA Distribution Norfolk and DLA Land & Maritime at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, both located in Portsmouth, Virginia. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 7. The solicitation, issued as a set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program, contemplated the award of a hybrid fixed-price and cost-reimbursement indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year ordering period.[1] RFP at 7, 14. The solicitation required the contractor to provide warehousing and distribution operations and supply management services, including all necessary management, personnel, supervision, materials, tools, and equipment. AR, Supp. Exh. 5, RFP attach. J.1, Performance Work Statement at 2. The RFP established that award would be made using a best-value tradeoff assessment, considering the following five factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) management approach; (2) staffing approach; (3) performance confidence assessment; (4) transition and sustainment of operations approach; and (5) cost/price. RFP at 75‑76. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 76. The RFP advised that the “degree of importance of cost/price [would] increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to other factors on which selection is based.” Id. The management approach factor was comprised of three equally important subfactors: (a) operations approach; (b) quality control; and (c) equipment efficiency. Id. The staffing approach factor was also comprised of three equally important subfactors: (a) key personnel; (b) staffing and organizational approach; and (c) risk management and employee retention. Id. Last, the transition and sustainment factor comprised two equally important subfactors: (a) transition approach; and (b) continuation of essential contractor services. Id. at 77 Although the solicitation did not identify subfactors for the performance confidence assessment factor, it provided that the agency would consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of offerors’ past performance references to assess each offeror’s ability to perform the required effort. Id. To determine relevancy, the agency would consider the “similarity of scope, magnitude of effort, and the complexities this solicitation requires.” Id. The agency would then assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating based on the recent and relevant past performance record, considering available performance quality information.[2] Id. The agency received seven proposals in response to the solicitation and established a competitive range of three offerors, including Arcticom and Lakota. COS/MOL at 8. Following the evaluation of final proposal revisions, the agency awarded the contract to Lakota. Id.