QinetiQ Inc. (RS3-22-0035)

B-421698,B-421698.2 Aug 09, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights QinetiQ, Inc. (QI), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton Technology Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-22-0035, issued by the Department of the Army for services in connection with the agency's Maturation of Ground Aided Target Acquisition program, which is described in the solicitation as aided target acquisition technology for ground combat vehicles. QI argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection 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: QinetiQ Inc. File: B-421698; B-421698.2 Date: August 9, 2023 Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Stephanie Harden, Esq., and Samarth Barot, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., and Karla J. Letsche, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Jessica J. Claitt, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION QinetiQ, Inc. (QI), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton Technology Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-22-0035, issued by the Department of the Army for services in connection with the agency’s Maturation of Ground Aided Target Acquisition program, which is described in the solicitation as aided target acquisition technology for ground combat vehicles. QI argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the issuance, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a cost-reimbursement type task order to provide the solicited services for a 24-month base period and one 24-month option period. Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering cost and two non-cost factors, technical and small business participation, with technical deemed more important than small business participation, and with the two non-cost factors collectively being deemed more important than cost. RFP at 17.[1] For purposes of evaluating proposals under the technical factor, the RFP advised that two “criteria”--understanding of the requirement and feasibility of approach--would be considered, and that four “elements” would be evaluating using the two criteria.[2] RFP at 18-19. The four elements were subcontracting, technical approach, schedule approach, and sustainment approach, and the RFP advised that the second element (technical approach) was deemed significantly more important than the remaining three elements, which were deemed equal in importance to one another. RFP at 17. For the small business participation factor, the RFP advised that the agency would consider the extent to which small businesses would participate in performing the requirement.[3] RFP at 21. The agency’s evaluation under the small business factor is not at issue in the protest. Finally, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate proposed cost for fairness, reasonableness and realism, and contemplates performance of a cost realism evaluation of proposed cost. RFP at 20-21. The RFP further provided that the agency would evaluate total proposed cost to include the estimated cost of performing under a 6-month extension of the contract, as contemplated by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8, which was incorporated into the RFP.[4] Id. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals, including those submitted by QI and Peraton. The agency evaluated the proposals, engaged in discussions with the offerors and solicited, obtained, and evaluated final proposal revisions. In performing its evaluation, the agency assigned the following ratings to the proposals and also determined the most probable cost for each firm:     Technical Approach Small Business Participation   Evaluated Cost[5] QI Acceptable Acceptable $37,308,083 Peraton Acceptable Acceptable $25,387,345   AR, Exh. 97, SSDD, at 8. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency issued the task order to Peraton, concluding that its proposal offered the best overall value to the government. Id. At 49-50.