Noblis MSD, LLC (N66001-24-R-0022)

B-423599,B-423599.2 Sep 11, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Noblis MSD, LLC, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenges the award of a contract to Solute, Inc., of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66001-24-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering, technical, and programmatic support services. The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision in numerous respects. 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: Noblis MSD, LLC File: B-423599; B-423599.2 Date: September 11, 2025 Rebecca Pearson, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Stephen G. Darby, Esq., Alexander Gorelik, Esq., and Celeste Friel, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester. J. Alex Ward, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Markus G. Speidel, Esq., and Cody B. Fisher, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Solute Inc., the intervenor. Diana L. King, 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 1. Protest alleging that agency erred by making award to an offeror whose proposal did not include a signed standard form 33 is denied where the offer contained other material evidence of the offeror's intent to be bound by its offer. 2. Protest alleging that agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Noblis MSD, LLC, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenges the award of a contract to Solute, Inc., of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66001-24-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering, technical, and programmatic support services. The protester alleges the agency erred in its evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision in numerous respects. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on Nov. 17, 2023, seeking engineering, technical, and programmatic support services for specialized networking, communication, and computer systems that are part of the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES), which, among other things, supports command and control in naval operations. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 1, 8. The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 3-year base period and two 2-year options. Id. at 2-4. The RFP explained that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between three technical factors and cost. Id. at 141-142. The three technical factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) organizational experience; (2) past performance; and (3) small business participation. Id. The non-cost factors when combined were significantly more important than cost, but the RFP explained that “the degree of importance of cost will increase with the degree of the equality of proposals in terms of the non-cost evaluation factors.” Id. at 142. The solicitation identified four key technical areas that the agency would evaluate for both organizational experience and past performance: (1) architecture research and design; (2) upgrades; (3) developmental testing; and (4) application integration and application development. RFP at 136, 143. However, the solicitation explained that these areas did not constitute sub-factors and would not be rated separately. Id. at 143. Instead, each technical factor would be rated based on an overall evaluation of all key areas. Id. Concerning organizational experience, the RFP directed offerors to provide three references, along with a matrix explaining the relevance of those experience references to the four key areas and other supporting material. Id. at 136. The RFP explained that the same references would also be used to evaluate past performance for recency, relevance, and quality across the four key areas. Id. at 137. The RFP explained that quality would be assessed using Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) assessments, past performance questionnaires submitted by offerors, as well as other sources. Id. However, the RFP cautioned that the agency “does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the offeror […] [t]he burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the offeror.” Id. at 138. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation provided that an offer “must” include several components. RFP at 125.