Sudofy LLC (N6523624R3002)

B-422604,B-422604.2,B-422604.3 Aug 16, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sudofy, LLC, a small business of Hanahan, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Atlas Technologies, Inc., also a small business, of North Charleston, South Carolina, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. N6523624R3002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Atlantic, for engineering, technical, and management support services for NIWC Atlantic's network systems. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Sudofy LLC File: B-422604; B-422604.2; B-422604.3 Date: August 16, 2024 David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Lauren R. Brier, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for Atlas Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Harold W. Askins III, Esq., Scott J. McGuigan, Esq., Christian J. Flask, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows the agency evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and performed a reasonable best-value tradeoff analysis. DECISION Sudofy, LLC, a small business of Hanahan, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Atlas Technologies, Inc., also a small business, of North Charleston, South Carolina, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. N6523624R3002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Atlantic, for engineering, technical, and management support services for NIWC Atlantic’s network systems. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR) is one of six major acquisition commands under the Department of the Navy. About NAVWAR Systems Command, https://www.navwar.navy.mil/About/ (last visited Aug. 12, 2024). NAVWAR ensures that there are capable and secure communications and networks that span platforms and facilities across the Navy. Id. NIWC Atlantic is part of NAVWAR and conducts research, development, prototyping, engineering, testing, evaluation, installation, and sustainment of integrated information warfare capabilities and services across all warfighting domains. Id. NIWC issued the TORFP as a small business set-aside on October 11, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, under the Navy’s SeaPort-Next Generation multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity contract for technical, engineering, and management support services for NIWC’s network systems, including the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services (CANES) system[1] and the Automated Digital Network System (ADNS).[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, TORFP amend. 0001 at 1, 7, 122. These and other systems enable NIWC to communicate and transfer information securely. The solicitation contemplated the award of a task order to the offeror with the proposal that provides the best value to the government based on the consideration of three factors: (1) technical understanding; (2) staffing plan;[3] and (3) price. TORFP amend. 0001 at 3, 122. The solicitation indicated that the task order will have a 1-year base period of performance and four 1-year option periods. The technical understanding factor required offerors to provide detailed descriptions of the processes, procedures, and methods they intended to use to accomplish the tasks in the performance work statement (PWS), while minimizing performance risk. Id. at 124. Offerors were to ensure that their responses included current technical trends, tools, and emerging technologies the offeror planned to use to complete the tasks. Id. This factor had two subfactors: engineering support, and sustainment patching. Id. Both subfactors posed hypothetical scenarios similar to tasks contractors would have to perform if awarded the contract. Id. at 122. Under the engineering support subfactor, offerors were to design a tactical afloat network and an enterprise service system[4] and discuss their design considerations, including problems they expected to encounter and steps they would take to mitigate and resolve those problems. Id. at 124.