Patrona Corporation (N6660424R3003)

B-423282 Apr 18, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Patrona Corporation, a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to KMS Solutions, LLC (KMS), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals No. N6660424R3003 (RFP), issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) Command, for nuclear submarine maintenance support services. Patrona argues that the agency's evaluation of Patrona's proposal and source selection decision were unreasonable. 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: Patrona Corporation File: B-423282 Date: April 18, 2025 Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., and Allison P. Klena, Esq., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., for the protester. Todd W. Muse, Esq., Denny Phane, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal and past performance is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Patrona Corporation, a small business of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the issuance of a task order to KMS Solutions, LLC (KMS), a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals No. N6660424R3003 (RFP), issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) Command, for nuclear submarine maintenance support services. Patrona argues that the agency’s evaluation of Patrona’s proposal and source selection decision were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2024, the agency, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside to holders of the Navy’s Seaport Next Generation multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 9-10, 113;[1] Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation sought proposals to provide nuclear submarine maintenance support services for the Submarine Maintenance Engineering, Planning and Procurement (SUBMEPP) activity, which is an independent field activity organized under the NAVSEA Command. RFP at 9. SUBMEPP’s mission is to keep assigned Naval ships and submersibles safe, reliable, and affordable though the use of its engineered life cycle maintenance and modernization products and services. Id. The solicitation sought support services to SUBMEPP in the areas of administration, program management, and engineering and logistics programs associated with life cycle maintenance, modernization, and modification of Naval ships, unique platforms, new construction units, and support facilities. Id. at 10. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single, cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursable task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 5-6, 113; COS at 3. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost. RFP at 114. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and the two non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the cost factor. Id. The technical factor comprised three subfactors: (a) technical approach; (b) management approach; and (c) personnel approach. Id. The solicitation established that technical approach was the most important subfactor within the technical factor, with management approach and personnel approach of equal importance. Id. For the technical factor, and each of the subfactors, the agency would assign proposals an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 114-115. As relevant here, for the personnel approach subfactor, the solicitation outlined that the agency would evaluate: (1) a staffing plan; and (2) key personnel. In this regard, the solicitation instructed offerors to submit (1) a staffing plan and labor matrix that identified all non-key personnel and key personnel; and (2) resumes demonstrating specific individual qualifications for each of the nine positions the solicitation identified as key personnel. Id. at 105-106, 114; AR, Exh. 2, RFP attach. 6.2, Personnel Qualifications at 1-6. The RFP provided that the Navy would “evaluate the extent to which the staffing plan addresses the labor hours identified in Section B [of the RFP] and proposed personnel are able to perform all aspects of the [performance work statement (PWS)/statement of work (SOW)].” RFP at 114.