Jacobs Technology, Inc. (W91RUS-22-R-0082)

B-422040 Jan 04, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jacobs Technology, Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to InDyne, Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS-22-R-0082, issued by the Department of the Army for support services for the Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Jacobs alleges that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal and failed to hold meaningful discussions. Jacobs also challenges the agency's 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: Jacobs Technology, Inc. File: B-422040 Date: January 4, 2024 Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Steven A. Neeley, Esq., and Geroge E. Stewart III, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the protester. Michael F. Mason, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., Christine A. Reynolds, Esq., and Stacy M. Hedeka, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for InDyne, Inc., the intervenor. Julie A. Glascott, Esq., James Kim, Esq., and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester is denied where evaluation notices led protester into the areas of its proposal with which the agency had concerns. 3. In making best-value tradeoff determination, the agency is not required to quantify benefits of selecting higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal. DECISION Jacobs Technology, Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to InDyne, Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS-22-R-0082, issued by the Department of the Army for support services for the Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Jacobs alleges that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal and failed to hold meaningful discussions. Jacobs also challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The EPG is an authorized major range and test facility base whose primary mission is to design and implement testing of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and equipment. The agency issued the solicitation on November 1, 2022, for proposals to support the EPG’s mission areas by providing operations, planning, execution, and cost estimating required for testing missions. The solicitation anticipates the award of a cost-plus-award-fee indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 224. The RFP contemplated award of the contract on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: mission support, staffing approach, financial system, past performance, small business, and cost. Id. The mission support factor had three subfactors, sample work breakdown structure (WBS) performance work statement (PWS), phase-in, and property management; the staffing approach factor had two subfactors, staffing approach and structure, and recruitment and retention; and the financial system factor had one subfactor, financial system capability. Id. The RFP provided that the mission support factor was more important than the financial systems factor and slightly more important than the staffing factor. The mission support, staffing, and financial system factors were all significantly more important than the past performance, small business, and cost factors. The past performance and small business factors were of equal importance, and all non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. Id. The subfactors within each factor were considered to be of equal importance. Id. The agency received four proposals on the November 30 due date for receipt of proposals, including the proposals from Jacobs and InDyne. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the initial proposals, and all four offerors were included in the competitive range, participated in discussions, and submitted final proposal revisions (FPRs). The SSEB evaluated the FPRs and the source selection advisory council (SSAC) reviewed the SSEB evaluations.