Alion Science & Technology Corporation (HDTRA122R0009)

B-422664 Sep 10, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alion Science and Technology Corporation (Alion) of McLean, Virginia, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA) decision not to award it an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDTRA122R0009. The agency awarded ten IDIQ contracts under the RFP for various support services for combatting weapons of mass destruction. The protester argues that the agency's decision to reject its proposal was unreasonable and, alternatively, the agency should have provided an opportunity for Alion to fix its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Alion Science & Technology Corporation File: B-422664 Date: September 10, 2024 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Andrew C. Crawford, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Jr., Esq., and David L.W. Smith, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Peraton, Inc.; Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., and Jonathan C. Clark, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., the intervenors. Judith L. Richardson, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s cost evaluation and rejection of protester’s proposal is denied where the protester’s proposal had inconsistencies between the cost narrative and cost spreadsheet, and the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s proposal failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation and that a most probable cost could not be determined. DECISION Alion Science and Technology Corporation (Alion) of McLean, Virginia, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) decision not to award it an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. HDTRA122R0009. The agency awarded ten IDIQ contracts under the RFP for various support services for combatting weapons of mass destruction. The protester argues that the agency’s decision to reject its proposal was unreasonable and, alternatively, the agency should have provided an opportunity for Alion to fix its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The DTRA issued the RFP on May 31, 2022, seeking proposals to provide various support services for combatting weapons of mass destruction. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP.[1] According to the RFP, the DTRA is the nation’s “premier Agency to address weapons of mass destruction (WMD) challenges.” Id. at 98. The contractor would be responsible for providing various support services to the DTRA, including “research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, maintenance, support and/or sustainment in support of various missions.” Id. at 99. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts across three “mission pools” under which the agency could issue task orders, grouped based on broad functional areas as follows: mission pool 1: artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, and software development; mission pool 2: operations and countermeasures in a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) environment; and mission pool 3: targeting, information operations and irregular warfare. Id. at 20. The RFP explained that the agency anticipated awarding three to five IDIQ contracts per mission pool, and offerors could submit proposals for more than one mission pool. Id. at 20, 69. Each IDIQ contract would have a base period of performance of five years, as well as one 5-year option. Id. at 12. The total program ceiling for all of the IDIQ contracts is $4 billion. Id. at 9. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis based on four factors, listed in descending order of importance: mission capability, past performance, socioeconomic commitment, and cost/price. AR, Tab 5e, RFP amend. 5 at 19-21. Of relevance here, for the cost/price factor, offerors were instructed to submit two parts: a cost narrative, and a cost spreadsheet.[2] AR, Tab 5g, RFP amend. 7 at 33-34. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate cost proposals for realism, reasonableness, and completeness, and calculate a most probable cost for evaluation purposes “by adjusting the [o]fferor’s proposed cost and fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.” AR, Tab 5e, RFP amend. 5 at 26. The RFP warned offerors that the agency could reject a proposal with “[a]ny inconsistency” by stating, specifically: A cost proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation.