Trace Systems, Inc. (PANAPG-22-P-0000-019320)

B-422056.9 Mar 12, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Trace Systems, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (Comtech), of Annapolis, Maryland, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. PANAPG-22-P-0000-019320, issued by the Department of the Army. The task order was issued through the Army's Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems (GTACS) II multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The contractor is to provide global field service representative (GFSR) support services under a task order known as GFSR II. The protester challenges as unreasonable the agency's past performance and price evaluations, asserts that the awardee has undisclosed subcontractors in violation of the solicitation terms, and asserts that the agency failed to reasonably consider the awardee's financial viability. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Trace Systems, Inc. File: B-422056.9 Date: March 12, 2025 Lee Dougherty, Esq., and Esna Mihail, Esq., Effectus, PLLC, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Michael P. Ols, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Andrew S. Waggoner, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated past performance is sustained where the record demonstrates both that the evaluation did not conform to the solicitation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the protester was competitively prejudiced. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s price is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with procurement law and regulation. 3. Protest that the awardee had undisclosed subcontractors--premised on teaming agreements between the awardee and other firms--is denied, because the teaming agreements are contracts between private parties and whether the awardee performs in accordance with its proposal is a matter of contract administration. 4. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to consider the awardee’s financial viability is denied because, in this task order procurement, the agency was not required to conduct a responsibility determination of the awardee. DECISION Trace Systems, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (Comtech), of Annapolis, Maryland, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. PANAPG-22-P-0000-019320, issued by the Department of the Army. The task order was issued through the Army’s Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems (GTACS) II multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The contractor is to provide global field service representative (GFSR) support services under a task order known as GFSR II. The protester challenges as unreasonable the agency’s past performance and price evaluations, asserts that the awardee has undisclosed subcontractors in violation of the solicitation terms, and asserts that the agency failed to reasonably consider the awardee’s financial viability. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Army sought a contractor to provide global support of government communications, primarily the operability and sustainment of a variety of tactical and strategic antenna systems. The RTEP, issued to holders of a GTACS II IDIQ contract and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost task order with a 9‑month base period and four 12‑month option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTEP at 1. The task order would be issued to the offeror whose task execution plan (TEP) represented the best value to the government, considering the following factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price.[1] RTEP at 19-20. The past performance factor was significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 19. The technical factor would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable and would not be included in the tradeoff analysis. Id. at 19-20. The agency’s evaluation of Trace’s and Comtech’s proposals as acceptable under the technical factor is not at issue in this protest. Under the past performance factor, the agency required each offeror to submit a minimum of two and no more than five past performance references. Id. at 9. Each offeror was to submit a minimum of two past performance references for itself as prime and at least one for each significant subcontractor.[2] Id. Each past performance reference would be evaluated for recency, relevance, and quality. Id. at 21-22.