C4CJV, LLC (N0042124R0009)

B-423512 Jul 31, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, LLC (CARS), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to PCG-SMX JV, LLC, of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042124R0009, issued by the Department of the Navy for information technology (IT) enterprise engineering, operations, and hosting support services (EEOHSS). CARS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s technical proposal and that offerors competed on an unequal basis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, LLC File: B-423512 Date: July 31, 2025 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Eric A. Valle, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., and Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for PCG-SMX JV, LLC, the intervenor. Hillary A. H. Spadaccini, Esq., Jonathan M. Warren, Esq., and Michael T. Patterson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Allegation that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulation. 2. Allegation that offerors did not compete on an equal basis is denied where the record demonstrates that the protester’s proposal was evaluated against the announced evaluation criteria and not compared to the current Navy architecture, which was known only to the incumbent awardee. DECISION Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, LLC (CARS), of Lorton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to PCG-SMX JV, LLC, of Lexington Park, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0042124R0009, issued by the Department of the Navy for information technology (IT) enterprise engineering, operations, and hosting support services (EEOHSS). CARS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s technical proposal and that offerors competed on an unequal basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy requires a contractor with the skills and experience to provide enterprise-wide applications, server, storage, data protection/recovery, data transport, and data environment engineering, operations, and hosting support services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 36. Requirements include planning, engineering/design, acquiring, provisioning, operating, administering, troubleshooting, repairing, and managing all aspects of the Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR’s) centrally and remotely located IT solutions managed by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Digital Network & Applications (DNA) Department. Id. To procure these services, the agency issued this solicitation--a small business set-aside--that contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year base ordering period and an optional 2-year ordering period; the contract would include cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement, and fixed-price contract line items. Id. at 2. The agency would award the contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering technical and past performance factors and cost/price. Id. at 144. The technical factor contained two elements--management and resources, and understanding of the requirements (sample task); the management and resources element was more important. Id. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. Under the management and resourcing element of the technical factor, the agency would assess: the offeror’s understanding and ability to manage the basic contract and task orders effectively; how the offeror would monitor and manage performance quality; the offeror’s ability to provide and maintain qualified personnel; the approaches, methods, processes, and tools the offeror would utilize in performance to support the current and emerging IT/cyber environments; and the risk associated with the proposed teaming structure, including whether the team structure had been used before. Id. at 145-146. Under the understanding of the requirements (sample task) element, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s response to the RFP’s sample task to assess the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform the requirements, the ability to effectively plan and manage the representative requirement, the ability to introduce innovative approaches in supplying IT solutions, and the offeror’s understanding of the associated risks, skills, and resources required. Id. at 146. The agency would assign proposals a rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under the technical factor. Id.