B-299091.3, AdaRose, Inc., March 28, 2008

Case: B-299091.3 Agency: Protester: B Date: 2008-03-28 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-299091.3 Mar 28, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AdaRose, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Army Joint Armaments Contracting Center to amend request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-05-R-0229, for armaments software engineering center support, to enhance certain knowledge and experience requirements. AdaRose alleges that the enhanced knowledge and experience requirements unduly restrict competition. AdaRose also argues the agency's technical rating of its original proposal, a copy of which was provided by the agency as an aid in preparing a revised proposal, in fact was an improper evaluation of its original proposal against the amended solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299091.3, AdaRose, Inc., March 28, 2008 Decision Matter of: AdaRose, Inc. File: B-299091.3 Date: March 28, 2008 George Holt for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preperation of this decision. DIGEST Under solicitation for armaments software engineering support, requirement that offerors have knowledge of and experience with agency software design processes is not unduly restrictive of competition where the record shows that the requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs. DECISION AdaRose, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the ArmyJointArmamentsContractingCenter to amend request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-05-R-0229, for armaments software engineering center support, to enhance certain knowledge and experience requirements. AdaRose alleges that the enhanced knowledge and experience requirements unduly restrict competition. AdaRose also argues the agency's technical rating of its original proposal, a copy of which was provided by the agency as an aid in preparing a revised proposal, in fact was an improper evaluation of its original proposal against the amended solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The protest concerns the agency's ongoing attempt to acquire indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for various software engineering, infrastructure, technologies, and equipment support requirements. The RFP represents the first time that ten functional areas representing various weapons system and infrastructure support requirements have been combined into a single solicitation.[1] AdaRose's original protest of the acquisition, on November 1, 2006, concerned the agency's award decision under the original RFP and alleged among numerous grounds of protest that the agency's rejection of its proposal was inconsistent with the published evaluation criteria, that the agency incorrectly rated AdaRose's past performance as neutral, and that the agency failed to reveal the seriousness of identified weaknesses during discussions. After reviewing that protest, the contracting officer determined that it was in the best interest of the government to take corrective action consisting of setting aside the source selection decision, amending the RFP to provide the clarity needed with regard to the agency's requirements, and requesting revised proposals from the offerors. On that basis, we dismissed the protest on November 29. Within a month after our Office dismissed that protest, the contracting officer began to detail deficiencies in the original solicitation and to draft amendments. More than 10 months later, however, the agency had not released an amended solicitation or requested revised proposals from the offerors. On October 15, 2007, AdaRose filed a second protest with our Office, alleging that the agency had unduly delayed implementation of its proposed corrective action based on the length of time that had elapsed since our Office had dismissed the original protest, the agency's failure to maintain communication with AdaRose, and AdaRose's view that the agency had demonstrated that it had no intention of allowing AdaRose to obtain work with the requiring activity. On December 10, 2007, while our Office was in the process of considering AdaRose's second protest, the agency released the amended solicitation in accordance with its proposed corrective action.[2] The agency also, on the same date, forwarded to each offeror a copy of the agency's technical rating of that offeror's original proposal, as evaluated under the original solicitation. The agency stated that the technical rating was forwarded to each offeror as an aid in submitting a revised proposal under the amended solicitation. Agency Report (AR), Part 1, at 1.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...