Herren Associates, Inc. (N0042123R30010002)

B-422336,B-422336.2 May 08, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Herren Associates, Inc., a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Naval Systems, Inc. (NSI), of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042123R3001, issued by the Department of the Navy for cost estimating and cost analysis support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its cost and technical proposals. 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: Herren Associates, Inc. File: B-422336; B-422336.2 Date: May 8, 2024 Eden Brown Gaines, Esq., Brown Gaines, LLC, for the protester. Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Naval Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Michael T. Patterson, Esq., and Candie L. Rodgers, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging cost realism evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the agency reasonably upwardly adjusted protester’s direct rates and other costs, and where the protester fails to demonstrate competitive prejudice. 2. Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation and source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Herren Associates, Inc., a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a task order to Naval Systems, Inc. (NSI), of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042123R3001, issued by the Department of the Navy for cost estimating and cost analysis support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its cost and technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on August 4, 2023, as a small business set-aside, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of the agency’s Seaport Next Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contract. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP[1] at 2, 3, 61. The Navy sought proposals for cost estimating and cost analysis services including acquisition and logistics estimating, independent evaluations, case studies, and recommendations for aircraft, aircraft components and subsystems, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other related items, in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. Id. at 9; COS/MOL at 4. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with some cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers, for one base year and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 2. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following three evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Id. at 62. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and the two non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. at 62. The RFP explained that the technical factor would be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating of “outstanding,” “good,” “acceptable,” “marginal,” or “unacceptable.” Id. at 63. The technical factor consisted of three subfactors: (1) key personnel resumes; (2) understanding of the work; and (3) management approach. Id. at 62-63. Relevant to this protest, for the management approach subfactor, the solicitation instructed offerors to “[d]escribe how and why subcontractors/consultants were chosen, what knowledge and skills the [o]fferor will be acquiring through each and how each will be integrated and managed to ensure cohesiveness.” Id. at 57, § 1.2.1.7. To assist the agency’s evaluation under the cost/price factor, the RFP provided that offerors should provide payroll verification for currently employed personnel being proposed for the effort. Id. at 59. Specifically, the solicitation stated: Payroll verification shall consist of a form containing the proposed labor category, direct labor rate, current clearance, certification status (per labor category as required), description of current position, and a signed certification by an authorized representative of the company that the information contained in the form is correct. Id., § 3.1.7. As important here, the cost portion of the proposal was to be evaluated for realism, to determine the most probable cost for each offeror. Id. at 65.