New Generation Solution, LLC (RFQ-1659834)

B-422428 Jun 24, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Akima Systems Engineering, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 712367735, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the source selection decision was flawed. 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: New Generation Solution, LLC File: B-422428 Date: June 24, 2024 Taylor R. Holt, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Alfred M. Wurglitz, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Cash W. Carter, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Systems Engineering, LLC, the intervenor. Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., and Vera A. Strebel, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the agency's assessment of weaknesses, overall evaluation of protester's technical approach, and source selection decision were reasonable. DECISION New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Akima Systems Engineering, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 712367735, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the source selection decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 29, 2023, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation as a set-aside to 8(a) firms with indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration's (GSA) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resources for Services (STARS) III governmentwide acquisition contract vehicle.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 3.[2] The agency sought communications and IT services to support the United States IndoPacific Command (USINDOPACOM). Id. The services included providing support in the areas of “systems, networks, and telecommunication engineering and administration, information assurance, computer network defense, and web portal and application development as well as supporting electronic key management, project management, portfolio and configuration management, enterprise architecture, and information management.” AR, Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixedprice contract, with a base period of one year and four 1-year options. RFP at 1. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering technical/management approach (technical approach) and price. Id. at 4. Technical approach was considered more important than price. Id. The technical approach factor was comprised of three subfactors, listed in order of descending importance: technical subfactor 1; technical subfactor 2; and management subfactor 3.[3] Id. Each subfactor contained several elements that pertained to different PWS tasks. Id. The agency evaluated six proposals, including proposals from NGS and Akima. AR, Tab 3, Source Recommendation Document (SRD) at 1. The agency evaluated the proposals of the protester and awardee as follows:[4]   NGS Akima TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT     Subfactor 1 (Technical) Outstanding Outstanding Subfactor 2 (Technical) Acceptable Good Subfactor 3 (Management) Outstanding Outstanding PRICE $45,811,543 $64,206,272 AR, Tab 4, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 4. After reviewing the recommendations by the evaluation team and conducting her own assessment, the contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), determined that Akima's proposal represented the best value to the government. Id. NGS was notified of the agency's award decision on March 5, 2024. AR, Tab 5a, Notice of Award. This protest followed on March 14.[5] DISCUSSION The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under technical subfactor 2. Specifically, NGS argues that the agency improperly assessed two weaknesses in NGS's proposal under the subfactor, that the agency's assignment of an “acceptable” rating for the subfactor was unreasonable, and that the source selection decision was flawed. Protest at 79.