MSK TriTech Group, LLC (RS3-22-0018)

B-421814 Oct 03, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MSK TriTech Group, LLC (MSK), a small business of Stafford, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to QED Systems, LLC (QED), a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-22-0018. The Department of the Army issued the RFP for system engineering and technical assistance support and sustainment engineering services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. 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: MSK TriTech Group, LLC File: B-421814 Date: October 3, 2023 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox, II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for QED Systems, LLC, the intervenor. David A. Machado, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal as ineligible for award is denied where evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and did not employ unstated evaluation criteria. DECISION MSK TriTech Group, LLC (MSK), a small business of Stafford, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to QED Systems, LLC (QED), a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-22-0018. The Department of the Army issued the RFP for system engineering and technical assistance support and sustainment engineering services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 3, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to small business holders of its Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; Agency Report (AR) Tab 7, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation sought system engineering and technical assistance and sustainment engineering support services in support of the Program Manager Force Protection Systems (PM FPS) mission. RFP at 1. The PM FPS mission “develops, acquires, procures, fields, and sustains persistent surveillance, perimeter security, and installation entry systems that enhance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, target acquisition, force protection, and physical security capabilities, enabling rapid situational understanding and integrated operations” for U.S. military operations. AR, Tab 10, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single task order with cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line item numbers (CLINs) for labor as well as cost with no fee CLINS for other direct costs (e.g., travel). RFP at 2. The contemplated task order would have a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, and established the following four evaluation factors: (1) personnel credentials, experience, and qualifications (personnel); (2) technical ability; (3) project management plan; and (4) cost/price. Id. at 10. The solicitation explained that the technical ability and project management plan factors would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. In contrast, the personnel factor would be adjectivally rated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and would be considered in the best-value tradeoff with cost/price. Id. at 10-11. Further, the solicitation set forth that an offeror “must receive an Acceptable or better rating in all non-price factors to be eligible for award.” Id. at 10. With respect to cost/price, the agency would evaluate for reasonableness and realism. Id. The agency received six proposals, including the second highest-priced proposal submitted by the protester and the highest-priced proposal submitted by the awardee. AR, Tab 23, Award Decision at 2. The evaluators assessed the protester’s and awardee’s proposals as follows: MSK QED Personnel Outstanding Outstanding Technical Ability Unacceptable Acceptable Project Management Plan Acceptable Acceptable Cost/Price $98,684,691.00 $106,644,019.58 Id. at 5.