Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. (W519TC-24-R-ATRRS)

B-422925,B-422925.2 Dec 18, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. (Tiber) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Halvik Corporation (Halvik) of Vienna, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. W519TC-24-R-ATRR, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for services involving the Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. File: B-422925; B-422925.2 Date: December 18, 2024 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., and Danielle, L. Dietrich, Esq., Potomac Law Group, for the protester. Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, for Halvik Corporation, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Jody M. Hehr, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of a weakness assessed under the most important aspect of the most important factor is denied where the agency’s rationale for the weakness is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the contents of the proposal. 2. Allegation of disparate treatment is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that different evaluation results were based on substantively indistinguishable approaches. 3. Challenge of the best‑value tradeoff as failing to support award to the higher‑rated, higher‑priced offeror is denied where the tradeoff decision is sufficiently documented and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. (Tiber) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Halvik Corporation (Halvik) of Vienna, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. W519TC-24-R-ATRR, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for services involving the Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS). The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and best‑value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. Background ATRRS is a “mission critical” centralized information system that serves as the system of record for managing individual institutional training throughout the total Army, active and reserve. Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 6; Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. Among its many functions, ATRRS manages over 29,000 courses conducted at more than 1,200 schools. AR, Tab 11, PWS at 5. The RFTOP was issued on December 20, 2023, under the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, to holders of the Army’s Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions Information Technology Enterprise Solutions‑3 Services (ITES‑3S) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. AR, Tab 3, RFTOP at 1, 3. The Army sought proposals for “all personnel, services, equipment, materials, facilities, supervision, and other items necessary” to perform “configuration design, operation, programmatic support, and maintenance” of ATRRS. AR, Tab 11, PWS at 4. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed‑price task order with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods.[1] RFTOP at 3. The task order would be issued to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering the following evaluation factors, shown here in order of importance: (1) technical/ management; (2) past performance; and (3) price. AR, Tab 17, Evaluation Criteria at 2. The technical/management factor was divided into the following subfactors: (A) transition‑in plan; and (B) technical/management approach. Id. The technical/ management approach subfactor was considered more important than the transition‑in plan subfactor. Id. Technical proposals would be rated adjectivally on a scale of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 4. A rating of outstanding was defined as: “Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.” Id. In contrast, a rating of good was defined as: “Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Id. Proposals were due by February 5, 2024. AR, Tab 10, RFTOP Amend. 0007 at 1. The Army received four proposals in response to the solicitation. COS/MOL at 3.