Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. (HDTRA1-23-R-0007)

B-421967.2 Jul 30, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., (SPA) of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of Reston, Virginia, under task order request for proposals No. HDTRA1-23-R-0007, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for nuclear enterprise advisory and assistance services. The protester argues that the agency conducted misleading discussions that led it to submit a proposal the agency rejected as unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. File: B-421967.2 Date: July 30, 2024 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., and Roke Iko, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. Steven Cullen, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the agency's conduct of discussions is denied where the agency's exchanges in a task order competition were not misleading. DECISION Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., (SPA) of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of Reston, Virginia, under task order request for proposals No. HDTRA123R0007, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for nuclear enterprise advisory and assistance services.[1] The protester argues that the agency conducted misleading discussions that led it to submit a proposal the agency rejected as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on November 18, 2022, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505 procedures, to holders of the General Services Administration's (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) multipleaward, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab D, RFP amend. 0002 at 1, 7, 22, 26.[2] The solicitation sought advisory and assistance services in support of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Nuclear Enterprise Directorate to research, plan, design, develop, implement, integrate, test, apply, and evaluate emerging and mature technologies for the agency's customers.[3] AR, Tab E, PWS at 1. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed- fee task order to be performed for a base period of one year, with four option years. RFP at 23. The RFP provided for the issuance of the task order on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors: (1) mission capability, which included management and technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) cost. RFP at 25-26. The solicitation specified that the mission capability and past performance factors were equally important and were more important than the cost factor. Id. at 26. For the mission capability factor, proposals were to be assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, acceptable, or unacceptable. Id. at 26-27. As relevant here, the solicitation instructions included the following language: The mission capability volume should describe the offeror's capability to satisfy the requirements of this solicitation. . . . Offerors are reminded that . . . the offeror is responsible for providing sufficient detail to enable the government to evaluate the proposal. . . . Offeror responses will be evaluated against the mission capability elements defined in section M, “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Id. at 14. With respect to the mission capability factor, the solicitation also advised in section M that the agency “will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's proposal demonstrates the ability to manage the requirements of the PWS, from assembling a balanced team of experts, to providing the disciplines and skill sets for each requirement.” Id. at 27. The solicitation provided for the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies under the mission capability factor. Id. The solicitation defined an unacceptable proposal as one that “contains one or more deficiencies . . . [and] is un-awardable.” Id. Under the past performance factor, the solicitation advised that proposals would be assigned a confidence rating. Id. at 29.