NexGen Data Systems, Inc. (N6523624R3020)

B-423209.2,B-423209.3 May 29, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NexGen Data Systems, Inc., a small business of North Charleston, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Modus21, LLC, a small business also of North Charleston, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523624R3020, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic, for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed comparison of proposals resulting from that improper evaluation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: NexGen Data Systems, Inc. File: B-423209.2; B-423209.3 Date: May 29, 2025 Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Tracey L. Pruiett, Esq., Daniel J. Figuenick III, Esq., Ryan J. Boonstra, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Richard J. Vacura, Esq., Steve Cave, Esq., and Lauren J. Horneffer, Esq., King & Spalding LLP, for Modus21, LLC, the intervenor. Nicole D. Bryson, Esq., and Harold W. Askins III, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s terms. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the majority of the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s terms, and the protester cannot otherwise demonstrate competitive prejudice arising from a single allegedly overlooked strength. DECISION NexGen Data Systems, Inc., a small business of North Charleston, South Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Modus21, LLC, a small business also of North Charleston, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523624R3020, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic, for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed comparison of proposals resulting from that improper evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on September 17, 2024, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding the Navy’s SeaPort‑Next Generation indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3. The RFP, which the agency amended twice, was set aside for small businesses and sought proposals for the provision of IT, network, planning, architectural analysis, evaluation, design, development, engineering, transition, cyber security, programmatic, and sustainment support services. Id. at 3‑4; Agency Report (AR) Tab 3, RFP at 8. A primary focus of the services to be provided is the transition from a mostly Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) hosting methodology--which meets business process needs through on‑premises data center hosting--to commercial cloud hosting environments including IaaS, Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) solutions. RFP at 9. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single, cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee, level‑of‑effort task order with a 12‑month base period and four, 12‑month options. Id. at 2, 101. The total level of effort across all 60 months of performance is 1,787,550 labor hours. Id. at 4; COS/MOL at 3. The agency would issue the task order to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the technically superior proposal with a fair and reasonable cost/price. RFP at 147. The agency would determine technical superiority on the basis of three factors: technical capability; technical understanding; and staffing plan. Id. at 147‑149. Only the technical capability and technical understanding factors are relevant here. Under the technical capability factor, offerors were to submit information regarding at least one, and no more than five, examples of corporate experience. Id. at 141. The RFP required offerors to submit at least one reference performed by the offeror and at least one reference performed by any significant subcontractor, a term the RFP defined as a subcontractor or any subsidiary or separate legal entity affiliated with the offeror that was proposed to perform at least 20 percent (without rounding) of the total proposed labor hours. Id. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate only references performed by either the offeror or a significant subcontractor, and that any other reference data would not be considered. Id.