The Mission Essential Group, LLC (H98230-23-R-0003)

B-423053,B-423053.2 Jan 15, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential), of New Albany, Ohio, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-23-R-0003, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for signals intelligence services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and competitive range determination and raises allegations of organizational and personal conflicts of interest. 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: The Mission Essential Group, LLC File: B-423053; B-423053.2 Date: January 15, 2025 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Sharon E. Chamberlain, Esq., Mary Upton Shirley, Esq., and Ronald M. LaRocca, Esq., National Security Agency, 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 evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the management factor and ability to staff factor is denied where the record reflects a reasonable evaluation conducted in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s decision to exclude the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the record supports the decision as reasonable. 3. Remaining technical and cost evaluation challenges are dismissed where the record demonstrates no possibility of competitive prejudice. 4. Allegations of organizational and personal conflicts of interest are dismissed because the protester was reasonably excluded from the competitive range and therefore is not an interested party to maintain such protest grounds. DECISION The Mission Essential Group, LLC (Mission Essential), of New Albany, Ohio, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230‑23‑R‑0003, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for signals intelligence services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal and competitive range determination and raises allegations of organizational and personal conflicts of interest. We deny the protest. Background The NSA issued the RFP on March 3, 2023, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals for active and passive signals intelligence in support of combatant commands and NSA target offices of primary interest. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The procurement is referred to as LUCIDLOBSTER. COS at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a single cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee contract under which technical task orders (TTOs) would be issued on a level‑of‑effort basis. Id. To evaluate proposals, the agency would conduct a best‑value tradeoff considering the following evaluation factors: management; ability to staff; small business participation; and cost. AR, Tab 11, Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC) at 3. The RFP explained that the management factor was considered more important than the ability to staff factor. Id. at 6. When combined, the management factor and the ability to staff factor were considered significantly more important than cost. Id. The small business participation factor would be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. The management factor was composed of the following four subfactors: staffing; training; innovation; and corporate plan. Id. at 7. With the exception of the corporate plan subfactor, all subfactors were considered to be of equal importance. Id. Regarding the corporate plan subfactor, it would be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and proposals were required to earn a rating of acceptable to be considered for award.[1] Id. The agency received multiple proposals by the April 18 deadline, including a proposal from Mission Essential. COS at 1. Over the next several months, a source selection evaluation board evaluated the proposals. Id. at 5. Mission essential’s evaluation results are as follows:[2]   Mission Essential Management Unacceptable Staffing Marginal Training Acceptable Innovation Unacceptable Corporate Plan Unacceptable Ability to Staff Marginal Small Business Participation Acceptable Proposed Cost $407,289,674 Probable Cost $407,691,849   AR, Tab 39, CRDD at 3. Following the evaluation of proposals, the agency established a competitive range. COS at 6. On August 29, Mission Essential learned that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range. AR, Tab 40, Exclusion Notice at 1.