B-299556.3, Diligent Consulting, Inc.--Costs, June 26, 2007

B-299556.3 Jun 26, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Diligent Consulting, Inc. requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest and supplemental protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3300-06-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for software support services for the Air University Directorate of Communications and Information at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. We dismissed both protests after the agency advised our Office that it would be taking corrective action by reevaluating the proposals. Diligent argues that its initial protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action until after the due date for the agency report and the protester had filed both comments on the agency report and a supplemental protest. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299556.3, Diligent Consulting, Inc.--Costs, June 26, 2007 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: Diligent Consulting, Inc.--Costs File: B-299556.3 Date: June 26, 2007 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester. Gary R. Allen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that Government Accountability Office recommend reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing an initial and a supplemental protest is denied where the initial protest grounds were not clearly meritorious and the agency took prompt corrective action in response to the supplemental protest. DECISION Diligent Consulting, Inc. requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest and supplemental protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3300-06-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for software support services for the Air University Directorate of Communications and Information at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. We dismissed both protests after the agency advised our Office that it would be taking corrective action by reevaluating the proposals. Diligent argues that its initial protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action until after the due date for the agency report and the protester had filed both comments on the agency report and a supplemental protest. We deny the request. On September 14, 2006, the Air Force issued the RFP as part of a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 (Revised) to determine whether to contract out--rather than continue to have performed in-house by the Air Force--certain software support services. The RFP called for award of a fixed-price contract to the responsible service provider with the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal that met or exceeded all the minimum mandatory criteria in the solicitation. The RFP required that private sector offers include at least one but not more than three –of the most recent (within 3 Years from the date of issuance of the solicitation) and relevant contract or project references (. . . for the prime service provider, and significant subcontractors).— RFP at 9. Past performance of subcontractors proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement would be considered –as highly as— past performance information for the offeror. Id. at 13. Amendment 1 to the RFP stated that the agency would conduct a price realism analysis as follows: Realism -- Realism will be based on evaluation of proposed prices to determine if they are compatible with the scope of effort, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, and are neither excessive nor insufficient for the effort to be accomplished. RFP, Amend. 1 at 2. By the RFP's closing date of October 20, the agency received proposals from two private sector offerors, the protester, who was the incumbent contractor, and Software Engineering Services (SES), as well as an agency tender based upon the government's most efficient organization. The protester's proposal included past performance information for itself and two subcontractors. With regard to the price realism analysis called for by the RFP, the final price competition memorandum Agency Report, Tab 13, at 4-5, states as follows: A realism analysis was conducted by the technical team to assess the compatibility of each service provider's proposed labor category descriptions and qualifications and projected annual man-hours for each labor category in their cost proposals to their technical proposals.