Hal Technology, LLC (N68335-22-R-0216)

B-422686 Oct 02, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hal Technology, LLC (HalTech), a small business of Fontana, California, protests the award of a contract to D-2 Incorporated (D-2), a small business of Bourne, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-22-R-0216, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for particle counters. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Hal Technology, LLC File: B-422686 Date: October 2, 2024 Jonathan D. Perrone, Esq., Whitcomb, Selinsky, P.C., for the protester. Alan Fougere, for D‑2 Incorporated, the intervenor. Hillary A. H. Spadaccini, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under the technical factor is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Remaining protest grounds are dismissed where the protester abandoned its initial arguments and instead raised new untimely arguments. DECISION Hal Technology, LLC (HalTech), a small business of Fontana, California, protests the award of a contract to D‑2 Incorporated (D-2), a small business of Bourne, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335‑22‑R‑0216, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for particle counters. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. Background The agency issued the RFP on October 6, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1. The Navy sought proposals for particle counters[1] able to detect particles in petroleum, synthetic‑based fluids, and phosphate ester fluids. AR, Tab 7, System Specification at 5. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP at 4, 92. The evaluation would consider the following factors, shown here in order of importance: technical,[2] past performance, price, and small business utilization. Id. at 92-93. Proposals were due on December 19, 2022. Id. at 4. The Navy received three proposals by the due date. COS/MOL at 2. All three proposals were included in the competitive range. Id. Following the establishment of the competitive range, the Navy conducted three rounds of discussions. Id. Final proposals revisions were due April 2, 2024. Id. The relevant evaluation results are as follows:   HalTech D-2 Technical Acceptable/Moderate Risk Good/Low Risk Technical Approach Acceptable/Moderate Risk Outstanding/Low Risk Logistics Good/Low Risk Acceptable/Low Risk Management Good/Low Risk Acceptable/Low Risk Past Performance Neutral Neutral Small Business Acceptable Acceptable Price $15,644,946 $18,335,097   AR, Tab 3, Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at 12; AR, Tab 5, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2; Protest, exh. 8, Rescinded Debriefing Slides at 16.[3] On June 11, the Navy awarded the contract to D-2. COS/MOL at 6. The agency concluded that the technical benefits associated with D-2’s proposal justified its higher price. AR, Tab 5, SSDD at 3. That same day, the Navy provided HalTech an unsuccessful offeror letter and written debriefing slides. COS/MOL at 6. HalTech timely submitted questions which the agency answered on June 20. Id. On June 24, HalTech filed the instant protest with our Office.[4] Discussion HalTech challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. According to the protester, but for the alleged errors in the agency’s evaluation, HalTech’s proposal would have been selected for award.[5] As discussed below, we deny the protest. Weakness for HalTech’s Degassing Solution Under the technical approach subfactor, the agency assigned HalTech’s proposal a rating of acceptable with moderate risk. AR, Tab 3, TET Report at 8. These ratings were based, in part, on one strength and two weaknesses assessed to HalTech’s proposal. Id. Relevant here, the first weakness was assessed for HalTech’s approach to a requirement called “degassing.” Id. The degassing requirement read as follows: “If preparation or processing of a sample creates air bubbles that adversely affect particle count accuracy, a means to eliminate or mitigate air bubbles shall be provided.” AR, Tab 7, System Specification at 7. The weakness stated: The Offeror’s proposal stated that there are no provisions at this time in response to [the degassing requirement.] [] [T]he Offeror does not demonstrate a means to eliminate or mitigate air bubbles, which may have an adverse effect on particle count accuracy.