Tribalco LLC (W52P1J-22-R-IMCS)

B-421837.3 Feb 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tribalco, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Tyto Government Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for delivery order proposals (RFDOP) No. W52P1J-22-R-IMCS, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command for information technology infrastructure modernization supplies and services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated technical proposals and conducted an improper best-value tradeoff 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: Tribalco, LLC File: B-421837.3 Date: February 5, 2024 John E. Jensen, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Aleksey R. Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Tyto Government Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Brittany N. Salter, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 that agency disparately evaluated proposals is denied where the record reflects that differences in evaluations were a result of differences in offerors’ proposals. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where the assessed weaknesses were reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and where the agency acted reasonably in not assessing additional strengths. DECISION Tribalco, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the issuance of a delivery order to Tyto Government Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for delivery order proposals (RFDOP) No. W52P1J-22-R-IMCS, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command for information technology infrastructure modernization supplies and services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated technical proposals and conducted an improper best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 20, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of its Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions, Information Technology Enterprise Solution 3 Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 7; Agency Report (AR), Tab 68a, Initial RFDOP at 1. The Army issued the solicitation as part of a phased effort to support combatant command upgrade projects to modernize and expand operational systems capabilities within the 2nd theater signal brigade that includes European and African commands. COS/MOL at 6; AR, Tab 8, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. Under this delivery order for the Army’s Europe infrastructure modernization capabilities set (IMCS) requirement, the contractor would survey, engineer, furnish, install, secure, and test a “turnkey” solution for up to 94 infrastructure modernization projects identified in the European areas of responsibility (AoR). COS/MOL at 7; AR, Tab 8, SOW at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a time-and-material and fixed-price delivery order with a delivery period of 60 months. AR, Tab 7, RFDOP amend. 14 at 1‑2.[1] The delivery order would be issued for four base projects and 90 optional projects that might be funded, executed, and completed during the 60‑month delivery period. Id. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and two technical factors: (1) management and experience; and (2) technical competency. Id. at 13. Each technical factor was comprised of two subfactors. Subfactors under the management and experience factor, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) project management plan; and (2) corporate work experience. Id. at 15. Subfactors under the technical competency factor, also listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) engineering implementation plan; and (2) contractor work breakdown structure (CWBS) and CWBS dictionary. Id. Overall, the management and experience factor was more important than the technical competency factor and, when combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. The solicitation informed offerors that proposals would be “evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the RFDOP are satisfied.” Id. at 16.