SunStone Technical Solutions, LLC (N0016423R30010004)

B-422540,B-422540.2 Jul 25, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SunStone Technical Solutions, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Invictus Associates, LLC, of Roseland, Virginia, a small business, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016423R30001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for professional fleet readiness support services for the Commander, Navy Regional Maintenance Center, in support of Navy forces worldwide. SunStone argues that the Navy misevaluated both firms' proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: SunStone Technical Solutions, LLC File: B-422540; B-422540.2 Date: July 25, 2024 Michael McGill, Esq., Nicole A. Williamson, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for the protester. Michael L. Sterling, Esq., and Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC, for Invictus Associates, LLC, the intervenor. Emily Rubino, Esq., Rebecca Bailey Jacobsen, Esq., Todd W. Muse, Esq., and Alanna Brannam, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated proposals under technical and maintenance, and past performance factors is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency made an unreasonable cost realism analysis is denied where the record shows the agency appropriately determined that the successful offeror's costs were adequately supported, and the agency properly applied indirect cost caps that the successful offeror proposed in making upward cost realism adjustments to the awardee's evaluated costs. 3. Protest that agency made an unreasonable best-value determination is denied where the record shows the source selection authority appropriately considered the evaluation results, applied the solicitation criteria in assessing proposals, and reasonably determined that the protester's advantages, particularly under the past performance factor, did not justify incurring its higher costs. DECISION SunStone Technical Solutions, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Invictus Associates, LLC, of Roseland, Virginia, a small business, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016423R30001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for professional fleet readiness support services for the Commander, Navy Regional Maintenance Center, in support of Navy forces worldwide. SunStone[1] argues that the Navy misevaluated both firms' proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on January 11, 2023, to small business contractors holding the agency's SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPortNxG) multiple-award task order contracts to obtain task order proposals to provide services for a base year and four option years on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. The task order would be issued to the firm whose proposal offered the best value, which would be assessed under three factors: (1) technical and management; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. RFP at 110.[2] The technical and management factor identified three elements: technical capabilities and approach, personnel requirements, and management approach. The technical and management factor was more important than the past performance factor and, when combined, those two factors were more important than the cost/price factor. The RFP organized the Navy's performance requirements under two task areas. Task 1 was to provide various types of support to the Commander, Navy Regional Maintenance Centers, which is responsible for coordinating and scheduling the depot- and intermediate-level maintenance of the Navy's surface fleet. Id. at 15. Task 2 was to provide support to the Navy's Surface Team One, which is responsible for improving processes for, and management of, ship service life and readiness, and enhancing surface ship maintenance and modernization. Id. Task 1 was further divided into subtasks, such as program management support, engineering/technical support, contracts governance and policy support, and information technology support. Id. at 16. Task 2 was also divided into subtasks, ranging from program management and executive steering committee support, to knowledge sharing network and community of practice. Id. at 31. Under the technical and management factor, vendors were to submit information under three elements, labeled A, B, and C.