B-298682.3; B-298682.4, Global Solutions Network, Inc., June 23, 2008

B-298682.3; B-298682.4, Global Solutions Network, Inc., June 23, 2008 TITLE: B-298682.3; B-298682.4, Global Solutions Network, Inc., June 23, 2008 BNUMBER: B-298682.3; B-298682.4 DATE: June 23, 2008 ********************************************************************* B-298682.3; B-298682.4, Global Solutions Network, Inc., June 23, 2008 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: Global Solutions Network, Inc. File: B-298682.3; B-298682.4 Date: June 23, 2008 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, P.L.C., for the protester. Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Accurate Conceptions, LLC, an intervenor. Peter F. Pontzer, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where agency evaluation of proposals was reasonable and conformed to solicitation in most respects, and protester was not competitively prejudiced by agency evaluation either of past performance information submitted after deadline in solicitation, or additional pages in resume for awardee's key personnel. 2. Protest that awardee's price was unreasonably low is denied where the awardee's price was significantly lower than the government estimate, but was considered reasonable given the agency's receipt of a similar price from a third, highly-rated, offeror. DECISION Global Solutions Network, Inc. (GSN), a small business, protests the award of a contract to Accurate Conceptions, LLC (AC) by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-06-R-0033 for task order management and financial support for the "HRSolutions" program office. GSN argues that the Army misevaluated the proposals, and should have found AC's price to be unreasonably low. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on July 29, 2006, as a commercial item solicitation, set aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses. The RFP sought fixed-price proposals to "provide on a daily basis all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform Task Order Management and Financial support" to the HRSolutions program office. RFP at 3.[1] The RFP anticipated a contract for a 1-year base period, followed by four annual options. As we noted in an earlier decision involving this procurement, the HRSolutions program office is responsible for managing 12 high-dollar-value indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts that support Army human resources functions in the areas of personnel services, studies and analyses, recruiting and retention, and administrative functions. The contractor will be responsible for following up on marketing leads and inquiries, assisting in the preparation of performance work statements and independent government cost estimates, preparing funding documents, conducting task order competitions, and recommending the selection of vendors. The contractor will also provide other routine business planning, financial management, and related business support. Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-298682, Nov. 27, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 179 at 1; Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1; see also Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-298682.2, Dec. 10, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 223. The RFP provided for an evaluation of proposals under four factors: technical approach, personnel, past performance, and "price/cost." Technical approach proposals were limited to 100 pages, and were required to address the offeror's organizational structure, procedures, controls, and quality control plan. RFP at 26-27. On a page labeled as "technical exhibit 1," the RFP also provided five performance objectives, along with a "performance threshold" for each objective. The exhibit stated that the "performance thresholds" provided a brief description of the minimum acceptable levels of service. RFP at 62. Under the personnel factor, the RFP required offerors to submit resumes for certain key personnel--i.e., the contract manager, a financial specialist, and a risk assessment specialist. RFP at 56. The RFP provided that resumes "shall be limited to two (2) pages . . . for each key personnel . . . ." RFP at 26.