DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The choice issued on the date beneath was topic to a GAO Protecting Order. This redacted model has been authorised for public launch.
Determination
Matter of: Spathe Techniques, LLC
File: B-420399; B-420399.2
Date: March 18, 2022
Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., and Diana C. Mendez, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for the protester.
Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Anthony A. Anikeeff, Esq., and Lauren N. Pennington, Esq., Williams Mullen, P.C., for Menace Tec, LLC, the intervenor.
Colonel Frank Yoon, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., and Carolyn J. Fox, Esq., Division of Protection, for the company.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Workplace of the Common Counsel, GAO, participated within the preparation of the choice.
DIGEST
Company moderately assessed important weaknesses in protester’s proposal the place the solicitation clearly required detailed data demonstrating an offeror’s expertise, understanding, and capabilities, however protester’s proposal contained solely abstract data.
Spathe Techniques LLC, of Tampa, Florida, protests the issuance of a process order by the Division of Protection, U.S. Particular Operations Command (USSOCOM), to Menace Tec, LLC, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. SCS210001 to offer language, regional experience, and cultural (LREC) program assist. Spathe asserts that the company improperly assessed important weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
In Might 2020, USSOCOM awarded a number of indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to 46 small-business contractors, together with Spathe.[1] In March 2021, the company issued RFP No. SCS210001 to the SCS contractors, looking for process order proposals to offer, amongst different issues, “LREC instructors, tutorial assist, Stay Surroundings Coaching (LET) assist, [and] program administration.”[2] Company Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1. The solicitation supplied that the supply choice resolution can be primarily based on a best-value tradeoff between the next analysis components: (1) program administration; (2) technical execution; and (3) worth.[3]
Part L of the RFP required, amongst different issues, that every offeror “describe its expertise offering assist to the Authorities on efforts comparable in scope to this requirement.”[4] RFP at 3. Per this requirement, part M of the RFP suggested offerors that “the Authorities will consider the expertise and understanding of the Offeror’s workforce . . . in offering coaching and assist providers of comparable scope to the [solicitation’s] necessities.[5] Id. at 11.
On April 28, proposals have been submitted by 18 offerors, together with Spathe.[6] Thereafter, Menace Tec’s and Spathe’s proposals have been evaluated as follows:[7]
|
Menace Tec |
Spathe |
|
|---|---|---|
|
(1) Program Administration |
Excellent[8] |
Marginal[9] |
|
(2) Technical Execution |
Good |
Good |
|
(3) Complete Evaluated Worth |
$4,537,627 |
$4,232,270 |
AR, Tab 11, Supply Choice Determination Doc (SSDD) at 3.
In assessing a marginal ranking to Spathe’s proposal underneath issue 1, program administration, the supply choice analysis board (SSEB) assessed important weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal. Particularly, the SSEB famous that Spathe’s proposal represented that its proposed workforce had “greater than [redacted] years of [experience in providing] language and cultural assist,” and that it “is at the moment performing [redacted] of all duties within the [solicitation’s] assertion of labor (SOW),” see AR, Tab 7, Spathe Proposal at 2; but, Spathe’s proposal contained nearly no further data to assist these claims. AR, Tab 9, SSEB Report (Spathe) at 1-4. The SSEB additional famous that Spathe’s proposed workforce consisted of a number of subcontractors or consultants, see AR, Tab 7, Spathe Proposal at Desk 2-1, however the proposal was unclear as to the roles the assorted workforce members would fill; the company concluded that this lack of readability elevated the chance of unsuccessful contract efficiency. AR, Tab 9, SSEB Report (Spathe) at 1-4. Lastly, the company famous that Spathe’s proposal did not “instantly focus on their understanding of Administrative workers positions,” noting that this additionally elevated the chance of unsuccessful contract efficiency. Id. at 4.
Thereafter, the supply choice authority (SSA) carried out an impartial evaluate and evaluation of the proposals and chosen Menace Tec’s proposal for award.[10] AR, Tab 11, SSDD at 1-7. The SSA thought-about Spathe’s and Menace Tec’s proposals to be basically equal underneath issue 2, technical execution, however concluded that Menace Tec’s considerably larger ranking underneath issue 1, program administration, and the a number of strengths in Menace Tec’s proposal related to that larger ranking, warranted its larger evaluated worth. Id. Accordingly, the SSA concluded that Menace Tec’s proposal provided the perfect worth to the federal government.
On December 2, 2021, Spathe was notified that Menace Tec’s proposal had been chosen for award. This protest adopted.[11]
DISCUSSION
Spathe asserts that the company “misevaluated Spathe’s proposal and in consequence made an unreasonable supply choice resolution,” sustaining that, however for the company’s “inaccurate analysis,” Spathe “would have been chosen for award.” Protest at 1, 5. Extra particularly, Spathe complains that the company “improperly” recognized important weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal underneath issue 1, program administration. Id. at 6. For instance, Spathe complains that it was improper for the company to criticize the lack of knowledge supporting Spathe’s illustration that its workforce had [redacted] years of expertise supporting the LREC program, its assertion that it was “at the moment performing [redacted] of all [required] duties,” or each, as a result of these have been solely “introductory statements,” and “[did] not relate to particular parts of the analysis standards.” Id. at 6. On this context, Spathe maintains that the solicitation’s analysis standards didn’t ponder analysis of its “introductory statements,” additional arguing that the solicitation contemplated solely “a summarized description of [an offeror’s] related expertise.”[12] Id. at 8; Spathe Feedback at 3, 4. Lastly, Spathe complains that the solicitation’s 25-page restrict “prevented further background.” Protest at 14-15. Accordingly, Spathe asserts that the company’s assessments of serious weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal have been unreasonable, opposite to the phrases of the solicitation, or each.[13] Id.
The company responds by first noting that the solicitation particularly suggested offerors that the company “will consider the expertise and understanding of the Offeror’s workforce . . . in offering coaching and assist providers of comparable scope to the [solicitation’s] requirement”; additional directed offerors to debate how every workforce member will contribute to the solicitation necessities with regard to expertise, understanding and capabilities; and, lastly, sought a “description of classes realized from earlier efforts.” RFP at 3, 11.
On this context, the company maintains that Spathe’s proposal did not adequately display its expertise with, and understanding of, the necessities as required by the categorical phrases of the solicitation. Memorandum of Legislation (MOL) at 7‑20. The company additional notes that, in its protest, Spathe “makes an attempt now to offer clarification or further data” that was not included in its proposal. Id. For instance, the company notes that whereas Spathe’s proposal merely contained a desk with an “X” subsequent to numerous workforce members that Spathe asserts have “capabilities aligned to the [solicitation’s] SOW,” its protest makes an attempt to offer further particulars that would have been, however weren’t, included in its proposal. Id. at 12. General, the company maintains that Spathe’s proposal failed to offer any significant description of the purported expertise, understanding, or capabilities of Spathe’s a number of workforce members. Id. at 7‑20.
The analysis of proposals in a process order competitors, together with the dedication of the relative deserves of competing proposals, is primarily a matter throughout the company’s discretion, because the company is liable for defining its wants and the perfect methodology of accommodating them. Wyle Labs., Inc., B-407784, Feb. 19, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 63 at 6. Additional, offerors are liable for submitting well-written proposals with adequately detailed data that clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation’s necessities and permits for significant evaluate. Raytheon Co., B‑416578, B-416578.2, Oct. 22, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 376 at 12. Companies will not be required to deduce data from an inadequately detailed proposal, or to provide data that the protester elected to not present. Jacobs Tech., Inc., B-411784, B-411784.2, Oct. 21, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 342 at 8. In reviewing protests difficult an company’s analysis, our Workplace is not going to reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the company; quite, we look at the file to find out whether or not the company’s judgment was cheap and in accord with the acknowledged analysis standards and relevant procurement legal guidelines and rules. MicroTechnologies, LLC, B-413091, B‑413091.2, Aug. 11, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 219 at 4‑5. An offeror’s disagreement with the company’s judgment, with out extra, is inadequate to ascertain that the company acted unreasonably. STG, Inc., B-405101.3 et al., Jan. 12, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 48 at 7.
Right here, primarily based on our evaluate of all the file, particularly together with Spathe’s proposal, we discover no foundation to query the company’s evaluation of serious weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal. As famous above, the solicitation particularly suggested offerors that the company would “consider the expertise and understanding of the Offeror’s workforce . . . in offering coaching and assist providers of comparable scope to the [solicitation’s] requirement”; directed offerors to debate every workforce member’s expertise and capabilities; and sought descriptions of classes realized from earlier efforts. RFP at 3, 11.
Accordingly, Spathe’s assertions that the company’s assessments of serious weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal have been “not relate[d] to particular parts of the analysis standards” are with out benefit. Equally, we reject Spathe’s assertion that the solicitation contemplated solely “a summarized description” of an offeror’s related expertise; on the contrary, the solicitation clearly contemplated detailed data relating to an offeror’s expertise, understanding and capabilities. Additional, we discover nothing unreasonable within the company’s conclusion that Spathe’s incapability to grasp the clear provisions of the solicitation created threat of unsuccessful efficiency. Lastly, Spathe’s criticism that the solicitation’s web page limitation improperly restricted its capability to offer detailed data constitutes an premature problem to the phrases of the solicitation. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). In abstract, we reject Spathe’s assertion that the company improperly assessed important weaknesses in Spathe’s proposal or improperly assigned a ranking of marginal underneath issue 1, program administration.
The protest is denied.
Edda Emmanuelli Perez
Common Counsel
[1] The IDIQ contracts are known as the Particular Operations Forces Core Assist (SCS) contracts, and ponder the supply of “subject material experience and information primarily based providers in assist of USSOCOM’s enterprise necessities for U.S. primarily based and globally assigned Particular Operations Forces (SOF) missions.” Protest, exh. 1, Spathe’s SCS Contract at 11. The scope of efficiency underneath the SCS contracts extends to training and coaching providers; administration assist providers; and program administration, engineering, technical, skilled and administrative providers. Id. at 13.
[2] The company states that the procurement at concern right here covers the complete breadth of the LREC program; has a ceiling worth of $350 million over an 8-year interval; and will probably be applied by means of process orders issued to the only awardee chosen on this procurement with out additional competitors. Contracting Officer’s Assertion at 2; RFP at 1.
[3] The solicitation supplied that “Components 1 and a couple of are of equal significance” and “when mixed, are considerably extra necessary than Issue 3.” RFP at 14. The solicitation additionally established a fourth issue, administrative, which was to be reviewed solely “for completeness and compliance with directions.” Id. at 10, 14. Spathe acknowledges that “[t]his issue [administrative] just isn’t at concern on this protest.” Protest at 3 n.1.
[4] Extra particularly, the RFP directed that offerors “shall embody an outline of the businesses and Sub-Contractors that represent the Offeror’s workforce, and the way these members contribute to the general requirement for . . . understanding . . . expertise . . . and functionality [of the team].” RFP at 3. The solicitation additional directed that “offerors shall present an outline of classes realized from earlier efforts.” Id.
[5] Part M elaborated that the company would assess, amongst different issues, “the diploma to which” the provided workforce collectively possessed the required capabilities. RFP at 11‑14
[6] The opposite offerors’ proposals will not be related to this protest and will not be additional mentioned.
[7] In evaluating proposals underneath components 1 and a couple of (program administration and technical execution), the company assigned adjectival scores of excellent, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. RFP at 10-11. Offerors have been suggested that the ranking for every issue “will embody consideration of threat along with strengths, weaknesses, important weaknesses, and deficiencies.” Id.
[8] The solicitation outlined an excellent ranking as “Proposal signifies an distinctive method and understanding of the necessities and incorporates a number of strengths, and threat of unsuccessful efficiency is low.” RFP at 11.
[9] The solicitation outlined a marginal ranking as “Proposal has not demonstrated an satisfactory method and understanding of the necessities, and/or threat of unsuccessful efficiency is excessive.” RFP at 11.
[10] The solicitation suggested offerors that the company supposed to make award with out conducting discussions. RFP at 14.
[11] As mentioned above, this procurement has a ceiling worth of $350 million, and all subsequent process orders will probably be issued to the awardee chosen right here with out additional competitors. Accordingly, this procurement is inside our jurisdiction to listen to protests of process orders positioned underneath protection company IDIQ contracts. 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)2(1)(B).
[12] For instance, Spathe refers to a “listing of packages” in its proposal that Spathe, its subcontractors, or each have supported, asserting that such itemizing met the solicitation necessities by describing every workforce member’s expertise “by means of a quick narrative and determine.” Protest at 12; see AR, Tab 7, Spathe Proposal at 6, Determine 2-1; Spathe Proposal at 16, Desk 3-4.
[13] In submitting and pursuing this protest, Spathe has introduced arguments which can be along with, and/or variations of, these particularly mentioned on this resolution. We’ve got thought-about all of Spathe’s allegations and discover no foundation to maintain its protest.
