Resource Management Concepts, Inc. (N00253-24-R-3000)

B-423503.2,B-423503.4 Sep 02, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Resource Management Concepts Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00253-24-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Navy, for information technology support services for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Keyport, Washington. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Resource Management's proposal with respect to whether the firm met the solicitation's small business participation requirement. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Resource Management Concepts, Inc. File: B-423503.2; B-423503.4 Date: September 2, 2025 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Laura A. Whitten, Esq., Chris Lybeck, Esq., and Trent Bowen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposed small business participation is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Resource Management Concepts Inc., of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00253-24-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Navy, for information technology support services for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Keyport, Washington. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Resource Management's proposal with respect to whether the firm met the solicitation's small business participation requirement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on November 19, 2024, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 (Indefinite-Delivery Contracts), under the Navy's multiple-award SeaPort Next Generation (Seaport-NxG) indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 179.[1] The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four, 1-year option periods. Id. at 5-16. Through this procurement, the Navy sought information technology support services, specifically, infrastructure, software development, and support services, for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Keyport, Washington. Id. at 31. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) cost; and (4) contract documentation.[2] Id. at 179-180. The Navy would assign one of five adjectival ratings when assessing the technical factor: outstanding; good; acceptable; marginal; or unacceptable. Id. at 180. For past performance, the agency would assign one of five possible confidence ratings: substantial confidence; satisfactory confidence; neutral confidence; limited confidence; or no confidence. Id. at 181. The Navy would evaluate proposed costs to determine if they were realistic. Id. Finally, the agency would evaluate an offeror's submitted contract documentation to ensure that all the required information had been provided and to verify compliance with all requirements; this factor would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Id. at 182. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and, when combined, those two factors were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 180. Offerors were to submit their proposals in four volumes, corresponding to each of the technical factors. Id. at 171-172. As relevant to this protest, an offeror's cost proposal included three parts. The first was section B pricing, covering the cost of performing the total level of effort of the contract. Id. at 174. This section of the solicitation provided a contract line item number (CLIN), corresponding to a statement of work task, and identified the associated number of labor hours for that CLIN. RFP at 5-17. Offerors were to submit pricing for each identified CLIN. Id. at 174. The solicitation cautioned that “Section B pricing will take precedence should there be any discrepancies with any other pricing information submitted.” Id. Second, cost proposals were also to include a cost proposal spreadsheet. Id. The RFP provided that this spreadsheet “shall provide a detailed breakout of every single cost element proposed across each base and option year as applicable.” Id. Further, the spreadsheet should “be overarching, encompassing all proposed costs inclusive of sanitized subcontractor costs, and it shall fully align with and support the proposed Section B pricing.” Id.