Synergy Group Alliance, LLC (89233123RNA000175)

B-422113,B-422113.2 Jan 12, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Synergy Group Alliance, LLC, a small business of Richland, Washington, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89233123RNA000175, issued by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, for counter nuclear smuggling system (CNSS) detection and deterrence services. Synergy argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal, used unstated evaluation criteria, engaged in disparate treatment, and failed to conduct a proper cost realism evaluation. 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: Synergy Group Alliance, LLC File: B-422113; B-422113.2 Date: January 12, 2024 John L. Holtz, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Greg P. Weber, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Jose A. Figueroa, Esq., and Matthew C. Butsick, Esq., Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, 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 evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record reflects that the challenged evaluation was premised on matters that were logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded it could not determine the protester’s probable cost due to inconsistencies in its proposal. DECISION Synergy Group Alliance, LLC, a small business of Richland, Washington, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89233123RNA000175, issued by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, for counter nuclear smuggling system (CNSS) detection and deterrence services. Synergy argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal, used unstated evaluation criteria, engaged in disparate treatment, and failed to conduct a proper cost realism evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 1, 2023, the agency issued the RFP for tasks associated with design, integration, construction, communications, logistics, training, and equipment procurement to support the deployment of counter nuclear smuggling systems. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 102.[1] The RFP described the procurement’s objective as being to deploy integrated sustainable counter nuclear smuggling systems in cooperation with international partners in order to strengthen the overall capability of partner countries to detect, disrupt, and investigate smuggling of nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in acts of terrorism. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of up to three indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a three-year base period and two two-year option periods. RFP at 9, 92. In addition to the base IDIQ awards, the agency advised that it intended to award one initial task order for program managers to each IDIQ awardee and a single regional task order for the Africa I region.[2] RFP at 98. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following six factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) corporate experience, (2) organizational structure and key personnel, (3) project scenario responses, (4) technical approach to Africa I task order, (5) past performance, and (6) total evaluated price. RFP at 95-98. The RFP advised that the first five criteria, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 96. When evaluating proposals under the first four factors, the agency would identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies; and it would use adjectival ratings of excellent, good, satisfactory, and less than satisfactory. Id. at 99. The RFP provided for past performance to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Id. at 99‑100. With regard to the project scenario factor, as relevant here, the RFP provided for proposals to be evaluated based on offerors’ responses to two different scenarios. RFP at 97. The first project scenario was for a “high security risk border area” and the second was for “austere environment equipment deployment.” Id. at 85-86.