Open SAN Consulting, LLC- dba OSC Edge (N66001-24-R-3522)

B-423287,B-423287.2 Apr 25, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Open SAN Consulting LLC, doing business as OSC Edge (OSC), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to Scientific Research Corporation (SRC), also located in Atlanta, Georgia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. N66001-24-R-3522, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific for technical engineering and installation services. OSC challenges the evaluation of the offerors' organizational experience and key personnel. The protester also argues that the best-value trade-off determination was 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: Open SAN Consulting, LLC- dba OSC Edge File: B-423287; B-423287.2 Date: April 25, 2025 Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Nicole A. Williamson, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., and Jonathan C. Clark, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Scientific Research Corporation, the intervenor. Ana F. Smith, Esq., and Diana L. King, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency evaluation of proposals and tradeoff decision is denied where the evaluation and tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Open SAN Consulting LLC, doing business as OSC Edge (OSC), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the issuance of a task order to Scientific Research Corporation (SRC), also located in Atlanta, Georgia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. N66001-24-R-3522, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific for technical engineering and installation services. OSC challenges the evaluation of the offerors’ organizational experience and key personnel. The protester also argues that the best-value trade-off determination was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2024, the Navy issued the TORFP to holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, TORFP at 1.[1] The solicitation seeks proposals to provide technical engineering and installation services to support a new command and control facility at the U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Id. at 73. The TORFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 13; AR, Tab 7, Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 4; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three factors: organizational experience, key personnel, and cost.[2] TORFP at 68. The organizational experience factor was of equal importance to the key personnel evaluation factor. Id. The non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. Id. Under the organizational experience factor, the agency was to evaluate each offeror’s experience related to five key areas: key area 1 (hiring and retaining engineering professionals), key area 2 (enterprise server), key area 3 (enterprise system management), key area 4 (virtual desktop infrastructure); and key area 5 (consolidated infrastructure administration). Id. at 62. To demonstrate its experience, each offeror was to provide up to three references. Id. Under the key personnel factor, the agency was to evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed key personnel met and exceeded desired qualifications set forth in the TORFP. Id. at 70. The Navy received timely submitted proposals from five offerors, including OSC and SRC. AR, Tab 7, BCM at 8; COS/MOL at 4. After evaluating the proposals, the agency assigned OSC’s and SRC’s proposals the following ratings:[3]   OSC SRC Acceptability Acceptable Acceptable Organizational Experience Good Outstanding Key Personnel Good Outstanding Total Evaluated Cost $43,395,597 $44,338,534 AR, Tab 7, BCM at 9, 46. In conducting the best-value tradeoff, the agency found that “SRC’s superior demonstrated organizational experience and [its] ability to provide higher qualified key personnel warrants paying an $868,457.74 or 2% evaluated cost premium over OSC’s evaluated cost, across the span of 5-years to a more qualified contractor.” Id. at 46.