2021 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 156; 2021 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P222

2021 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 156; 2021 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P222

Opinion

EDITOR'S NOTE: PAGE NUMBERS APPEARING IN BOLD BRACKETS, [CPD 1], REFLECT THE OFFICIAL PAGINATION OF THE U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL PROCUREMENT DECISIONS.

[CPD 1]DECISION

IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Vectrus Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under request for proposals [*2]  (RFP) No. W91RUS19R0018, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for operation and maintenance services in support of the Army Operational Base Communications Information Systems and its infrastructure in support of United States Central Command forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Jordan. IAP challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, and decision to make award without conducting discussions.

We deny the protest.

[CPD 2]BACKGROUND

The RFP, which was issued on April 3, 2019, and subsequently amended 8 times, sought proposals for operations and maintenance support of U.S. government owned or leased telecommunications equipment and information systems under the operational purview of the Network Enterprise Technology Command, 160th Signal Brigade and its subordinate units in the Southwest Asia and Central Asia theaters of operation. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP, amend. No. 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS), P C.2.0. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, with two, 60-day phase-in periods, an 8-month base period, and four, 1-year option periods. AR, Tab 4, RFP, P B.2.

Award was [*3]  to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) mission support/technical approach; (2) past performance; (3) cost; and (4) small business participation. AR, Tab 4, RFP, P M.1.A. The mission support/technical approach factor was more important than the past performance factor; the past performance factor was more important than cost; and cost was more important than small business participation. Id. The non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. Id.

Additionally, the mission support/technical approach factor included four subfactors: (i) management; (ii) technical; (iii) property management; and (iv) quality control. Id., P M.3. Among the subfactors, management was more important than technical, and technical was more important than property management and quality control. Id. Relevant here, the RFP provided that an offeror with individual subfactor ratings of less than "acceptable" for the management or technical subfactors, or "pass" for the property management or quality control subfactors would not move forward in the source selection process, and would not be considered for award. Id., P M.4. The RFP [*4]  directed offerors to clearly demonstrate their ability to meet all of the RFP's requirements, and warned offerors that failure to furnish full and complete information demonstrating the offeror's ability to satisfy the specified requirements could cause the offer to be considered unacceptable, and, therefore, ineligible for award. Id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.