B-297616; B-297616.2, M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc., February 14, 2006

B-297616; B-297616.2, M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc., February 14, 2006 TITLE: B-297616; B-297616.2, M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc., February 14, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297616; B-297616.2 DATE: February 14, 2006 ************************************************************************************ B-297616; B-297616.2, M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc., February 14, 2006 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: M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; PMTech, Inc. File: B-297616; B-297616.2 Date: February 14, 2006 Charlotte Rothenberg Rosen, Esq., Bradley D. Wine, Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, and G. David Fensterheim, Esq., Fensterheim & Bean, P.C., for M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC; Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, PC, for PMTech, Inc., the protesters. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., and Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., for CSC Systems & Solutions LLC, an intervenor. Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., and Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., Department of Energy, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Laura Mann Eyester, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests are sustained where agency notice of intent to modify contract to extend performance on a sole-source basis did not comply with requirement for an accurate description of the services to be furnished and thus did not provide enough information to allow all prospective sources a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the ability to meet the agency's requirements. DECISION M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC and PMTech, Inc., both small business concerns, protest a 9-month extension of a sole-source "bridge" contract by the Department of Energy (DOE) for guidance development services. Thompson and PMTech argue that the agency failed to properly synopsize the requirement in order to allow them to prepare meaningful responses, thus rendering the sole-source contracting action improper. We sustain the protests. On November 10, 2005, DOE published a "Presolicitation Notice" on the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fedbizopps.gov) expressing its intent to extend contract No. DE-AC01-04SO20188 with CSC Systems & Solutions LLC for certain unspecified services for up to 9 months (divided into three consecutive 3-month periods) on the basis that CSC was the only responsible source.[1] Under the title of "Notice of Intent to Extend the Period of Performance," the sole descriptive information in the synopsis were these statements: "CSC has the requisite number of key and non-key personnel possessing the required security clearances. No other firm has the requisite knowledge, experience, and capability to assume the critical, highly specialized technical and administrative support without interruption on December 22, 2005." AR, Tab 1, Presolicitation Notice, at 1-2.[2] Thompson and PMTech filed their protests on November 18 and 21, respectively.[3] On November 21, DOE prepared a sole-source justification which, over the following 18 days, was approved by the contracting officer, legal counsel, and the agency competition advocate, among others. By December 9, the justification contained all of the required signature approvals. AR, Tab 3, Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition, at 7. On December 12, Thompson and PMTech each submitted a capability statement. Thompson AR, Tab 30, Thompson Capability Statement, at 1; PMTech AR, Tab 30, PMTech Updated Statement of Qualifications, at 2. After review of the capability statements, DOE concluded that neither Thompson nor PMTech had shown that it could meet the agency requirements. For example, the agency states that Thompson does not specifically note that the personnel listed are actually available or merely prospective employees. For example, [deleted], is a full time employee of another company under contract to DOE. Thompson experience is limited to the weapons area and has no demonstrated experience or ability to provide technical reviews of a wide variety of technical and security areas. Specifically, Thompson lacks required experienced personnel in isotope separation technology, an area of utmost importance to the DOE.