Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC (N0018924RZ048)

B-423267.2 Sep 02, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Linchpin Solutions, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018924RZ048, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, for support services and data link training for the Joint Tactical Operations Interface Training Program and the United States Text Formatting Training Program, in North Carolina and at other domestic and foreign sites. Advanced argues that the Navy misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC File: B-423267.2 Date: September 2, 2025 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., and Kristine E. Crallé, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Linchpin Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. James J. Gross, Esq., and Eric Lofquist, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated awardee's past performance and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's past performance as relevant and properly considered the quality of its past performance in assessing the firm's past performance overall as essentially equal to the protester's, and where that evaluation supported the agency's source selection judgment that the awardee's better overall non-price evaluation and its lower evaluated price justified its selection as the best value offeror. DECISION Advanced Computer Learning Company, LLC, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Linchpin Solutions, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0018924RZ048, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, for support services and data link training for the Joint Tactical Operations Interface Training Program and the United States Text Formatting Training Program, in North Carolina and at other domestic and foreign sites. Advanced argues that the Navy misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 23, 2024, requested proposals to provide services in support of the Joint Staff Joint Interoperability and Data Link Training Center to train United States and allied armed forces in the use of joint tactical operations interface and multi-tactical data link capabilities. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Conformed RFP at 64‑65. The RFP, set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with an ordering period of up to 66 months, including a 6‑month option for extension of services under FAR 52.217-8. Conformed RFP at 104. The RFP included a performance work statement (PWS) describing the agency's requirements, which were organized into eight tasks. Id. at 64. The most relevant to the protest issues are task 3.2 (certify allied training), task 3.4 (course instructional system design), and task 3.8 (contract management/administrative services). Id. Proposals would be evaluated under three factors: performance approach, past performance, and total price. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as providing the best value overall, where the performance approach factor was more important than past performance and, together, those two non-price factors were more important than total evaluated price.[1] Conformed RFP at 152. Under the past performance factor, offerors were to identify up to three relevant contracts or efforts within the past five years, as well as information demonstrating the relevance of each. Id. at 149. The RFP defined relevance as “performance under contracts or efforts within the past five years that is the same as, or similar to, the scope and magnitude of the work described by this solicitation.” Id. at 8.