Tactical Revolution, LLC (15F06723R0000173)

B-422269 Feb 27, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tactical Revolution, LLC, a small business of Jupiter, Florida, protests the decision of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, not to award the protester a contract for ballistic resistant shields under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15F06723R0000173. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Tactical Revolution, LLC File: B-422269 Date: February 27, 2024 Theodore K. Pernal and Timo Tervola for the protester. Robert D. English, Esq., Carlos Pedraza, Esq., Ethan S. Chae, Esq, and Camille Small‑Simon, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal by failing to review product instructions is denied where the protester has not demonstrated how reviewing those instructions would have resulted in a more favorable evaluation. DECISION Tactical Revolution, LLC, a small business of Jupiter, Florida, protests the decision of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, not to award the protester a contract for ballistic resistant shields under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15F06723R0000173. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on May 17, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 and amended it three times. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3‑1, RFP at 7. The RFP sought proposals for the provision of multiple types of ballistic resistant shields: pistol‑rated shield (with viewport or alternate viewing system); rifle‑rated, compact size shield (with viewport or alternate viewing system); rifle‑rated, large size shield with viewport; and rifle‑rated, large size shield without viewport. RFP at 7. Only the rifle‑rated, large size shield without viewport category is relevant here. The RFP anticipated award of two indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the provision of rifle‑rated, large size shields without viewport. Id. The RFP contemplated award of contracts with a 12‑month base ordering period and four 12‑month option periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. Id. at 15, 37. Additionally, the RFP anticipated that the primary and secondary awardees’ IDIQ contracts would have maximum values of $14,000,000 and $4,000,000, respectively. Id. at 8. Pursuant to the RFP’s instructions, proposals were to consist of a technical proposal, a price proposal, past performance information, and ballistic resistant shield samples. Id. at 78. Relevant to the issues presented in this protest, the RFP required each technical proposal to include various supporting information, including “[d]etailed instructions on the proper set‑up and use of the shield and all submitted accessories.” Id. With respect to the ballistic resistant shield samples, the RFP instructed offerors to provide five shields, as well as two “samples of each accessory that the [o]fferor plans to make available on the contract.” Id. at 80. Offerors further were to provide “[d]etailed operating instructions for any/all accessories.” Id. As relevant here, the RFP provided for evaluation of technical proposals and ballistic resistant shield samples through a three‑phase evaluation process. Id. at 84. In phase I, the agency would evaluate the technical proposal to determine whether it included all of the required information. Id. at 85. Additionally, a technical evaluation board (TEB) would evaluate the sample shields to determine whether they met specifications set forth in the RFP’s statement of work. Id. The agency would assess both of these aspects on a pass/fail basis, with those submissions successfully passing the phase I evaluations advancing to the phase II evaluation. Id. The phase II evaluation was to consist of an assessment of the submitted ballistic resistant shield samples and, if applicable, accessories, to be performed by Department of Justice law enforcement professionals, to whom the RFP referred as assessors. Id. The assessors would evaluate the shields and accessories through a controlled series of events. Id. As set forth in the RFP, the assessors would participate in shooting events, consisting of a series of drills that may include dry fire, live fire, and/or non‑lethal training ammunition. Id. at 86. The assessors also would participate in practical application events, consisting of scenarios such as arrest, structure clearing, low light operations, and vehicle containment.