B-299557, A-TEK, Inc., May 3, 2007

B-299557 May 03, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A-TEK, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable, based on a requirement concerning the adequacy of the firm's accounting system, under request for proposals (RFP) No. TQ2006MCB0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for information technology (IT) services. A-TEK primarily asserts that the rejection is unreasonable because it furnished sufficient information to satisfy the requirement and, in any event, GSA is responsible for A-TEK's failure to meet the requirement. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299557, A-TEK, Inc., May 3, 2007 Decision Matter of: A-TEK, Inc. File: B-299557 Date: May 3, 2007 Debbie Rieger for the protester. Jonathan R. Celniker, Esq., and Michael J. Ettner, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In procurement that will include cost-reimbursement task orders, agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal for lack of verification of federally audited accounting system as required by the solicitation. DECISION A-TEK, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable, based on a requirement concerning the adequacy of the firm's accounting system, under request for proposals (RFP) No. TQ2006MCB0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for information technology (IT) services. A-TEK primarily asserts that the rejection is unreasonable because it furnished sufficient information to satisfy the requirement and, in any event, GSA is responsible for A-TEK's failure to meet the requirement. We deny the protest. The RFP anticipated the award of some 25 to 30 contracts under a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC) for a broad range of IT services, with a not-to-exceed ceiling of $50 billion. Contractors were to provide all management, supervision, labor, facilities and materials necessary to perform on a task order basis, including cost-reimbursement orders. Awards were to be made on a –best value— basis, with proposals evaluated under two equally important technical factors--past performance and contract plan--which, combined, were significantly more important than price. Prior to the evaluation under these factors, proposals were to be reviewed for acceptability on a pass/fail basis; those failing this review would not be considered further for award. Proposals were required to include the Defense Contract Audit Agency's (DCAA), or other federal audit agency's, verification of –an accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to this contract in accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation] FAR 16.301-3(a)(1).— [1] RFP sect. L.12.5, as amended. Any offeror that did not have audit verification but was –certain its accounting system has been determined adequate— could provide contact information from a cognizant auditing representative office. Id.Offerors were warned that their proposals would be rejected if the agency was unable to obtain audit verification. Id. In response to this requirement, A-TEK's proposal provided information on its use of Deltek software for its accounting and job costs system; contact information for the contracting officer on two current contracts with cost-type task orders; and notice that it had submitted provisional billing rates to DCAA. A-TEK Proposal, Folder J. After GSA reviewed this information and contacted the listed references, it informed A-TEK that it could not verify that the firm's accounting system had been properly audited and deemed adequate. GSA requested additional contact information for verification purposes. In response, A-TEK repeated the information in its proposal, argued that the requirement was arbitrary, and requested that GSA conduct a pre- or post-award audit for offerors lacking audit verification. Thereafter, GSA notified A-TEK that its proposal had been rejected, and this protest followed. A-TEK asserts that, even though it did not have a verified accounting system, the agency erred in rejecting its proposal because the firm met the RFP's requirements through its use of the Deltek accounting system, submission of provisional billing rates to DCAA for audit, and current contracts with cost-reimbursable-type task orders.[2] In considering a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP, B'286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10-11.