B-310303.2, Veterans Technology, LLC, January 7, 2008

B-310303.2 Jan 07, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Veterans Technology, LLC (VetTech) protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911M-07-R-0006 issued by the Department of the Army for engineering and technical support services for the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, Forces Strategic Command, and other associated air, space and missile defense organizations. VetTech challenges the agency's determination that VetTech's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310303.2, Veterans Technology, LLC, January 7, 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: Veterans Technology, LLC File: B-310303.2 Date: January 7, 2008 Gary L. Rigney, Esq., Gary L. Rigney Law Office, for the protester. Capt. Marlin D. Paschal, Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as unacceptable and on that basis, properly determined that protester's proposal was ineligible for award on the basis of initial offers. DECISION Veterans Technology, LLC (VetTech) protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911M-07-R-0006 issued by the Department of the Army for engineering and technical support services for the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, Forces Strategic Command, and other associated air, space and missile defense organizations. VetTech challenges the agency's determination that VetTech's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued as a total small business set-aside and contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a 1-year base period followed by four 1-year options. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors: technical, management, sample tasks, past performance and price. RFP at 108-11. Of relevance here, the RFP advised offerors that their responses to the sample tasks would be evaluated, and advised offerors to respond with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate their approach to performing and understanding the sample task orders. Id. at 89-90. Specifically, each response to the sample task orders was to be evaluated to determine whether the offeror: (1) grasped the scope and requirements of the task orders; (2) proposed a sound technical approach; (3) demonstrated an appropriate use of its proposed labor mix and other resources; (4) provided a sound task management philosophy and effective task order management approach; (5) demonstrated an understanding of the key management and technical factors; (6) possessed the technical depth necessary to complete the task order; and, (7) had past experience performing similar and/or related efforts. Id. at 110. In addition, with respect to the pricing of the task orders, the RFP provided: The proposed price shall replicate the CLIN structure set forth in Section B. The offeror shall include a billable rate table by fiscal year depicting the maximum rates per labor category that would be paid. The offeror shall clearly explain the basis of price (e.g., basis of estimate) for each of the sample task order, to include the discounts proposed, methodology for application of the discounts, pricing of non-labor resources (ODCs) and pricing of travel. Id. at 97. With respect to the price proposals to be prepared for the sample task orders, the RFP advised that any significant, unexplained, inconsistency would raise questions about the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of the work required to perform the task orders, and about the offeror's ability to perform the tasks. Id. at 111. The RFP set forth the agency's estimated lump-sum amount for each fiscal year and total program funding amount for the sample task orders. Each task order also contained a not-to-exceed dollar amount for travel costs. Finally, the RFP advised that the agency would use an alternate source selection procedure applicable to highly-complex RDT&E (research, development, testing and experimental) efforts. Id. at 112. This alternate procedure anticipated evaluation of proposals and selection of sources for award on the basis of initial offers, without holding discussions or establishing a competitive range. Id.After selection of the intended awardees, the solicitation anticipated –in-depth negotiations leading to contract awards...with the selected sources.— Id.The RFP stated that these final negotiations with the selected offerors would not result in either the selected offeror's proposal being improved, or displacement of another selected offeror.