Matter of: MP Sols., LLC, 2022 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 313

Matter of: MP Sols., LLC, 2022 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 313

Opinion

DECISION

MP Solutions, LLC, a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0858-22-R-0003, issued by the Missile Defense Agency for specialized engineering analysis services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal under multiple non-price factors. Additionally, the protester alleges two instances of agency disclosure of source selection information in violation of the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2107, known as the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), and contends that the disclosures provided another offeror (nTSI LLC, the intervenor) an unfair competitive advantage.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6d, RFP at 1-2. ¹ The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of engineering and technical support; studies, analysis, and evaluations; and management and professional services related to "the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) mission to develop, test, and field an integrated, [*3]  layered Missile Defense System (MDS) to defend the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight." AR, Tab 4g, RFP attach. J-01 Statement of Work (SOW) at 3.

The solicitation contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract with a 3-year base period, and two 2-year option periods. RFP at 51-55, 115; AR, Tab 6c, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (RFP § L) at 8. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and four non-cost factors. AR, Tab 4e, Evaluation Factors for Award (RFP § M) at 4-5. The solicitation provided that the following three of the four non-cost factors would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis: (1) information management and control plan; (2) organizational conflict of interest management plan; and (3) facility clearance. Id. The solicitation set forth that "[a]ny proposal with an Unacceptable" on one of these three factors [*4]  would "not be eligible for award." Id. at 5.

The solicitation provided that the fourth non-cost factor--mission capability--was composed of six equal subfactors: (1) innovation, science, and technology; (2) test and performance analyses; (3) cybersecurity engineering; (4) space systems; (5) Israeli programs; and (6) human capital management. RFP § M at 5. For each of the six mission capability subfactors, the evaluators would assign one of five potential adjectival ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 6-7. Additionally, the evaluators would assess for each of the mission capability subfactors one of four technical risk ratings: low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. Id. at 7. The solicitation established that a proposal receiving a technical rating of unacceptable under any of the six subfactors would be considered unawardable. Id. at 7. Further, the solicitation set forth that the mission capability factor was significantly more important that cost, which the agency would evaluate for reasonableness and realism. Id. at 5.

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