B-311241; B-311241.2, Carahsoft Technology Corporation; Allied Technology Group, May 16, 2008

B-311241; B-311241.2, Carahsoft Technology Corporation; Allied Technology Group, May 16, 2008 TITLE: B-311241; B-311241.2, Carahsoft Technology Corporation; Allied Technology Group, May 16, 2008 BNUMBER: B-311241; B-311241.2 DATE: May 16, 2008 ********************************************************************************************* B-311241; B-311241.2, Carahsoft Technology Corporation; Allied Technology Group, May 16, 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: Carahsoft Technology Corporation; Allied Technology Group File: B-311241; B-311241.2 Date: May 16, 2008 Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., Angela B. Styles, Esq., and James Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protesters. Kristen M. Nowadly, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 Protests are sustained where, in a competition for human resources services Federal Supply Schedule contracts, the contemporaneous record fails to adequately document the basis for the agency's decision to exclude compensation management services from the awards made to the protesters, and the agency's explanation of its reasoning, in its responses to the protests, is inconsistent with the limited contemporaneous record. DECISION Carahsoft Technology Corporation and Allied Technology Group protest the decision not to include services for compensation management in the award of Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract modifications to each of them by the General Services Administration (GSA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2FYA-AR-060004-B for human resources and equal employment opportunity services worldwide.[1] The protesters object that GSA unreasonably excluded compensation management services from their contracts based on flawed evaluations. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND GSA issued the RFP as a solicitation for commercial items on May 21, 2007 as "Refresh 7" to Schedule 738X, which is the human resources and equal employment opportunity services schedule. As part of this latest iteration of Schedule 738X, GSA added two new Special Item Numbers (SINs), designated as SIN 595-22 and SIN 595-26. GSA explained that the objective of the solicitation is to establish FSS contracts under which agencies can procure services from private sector firms that are capable of establishing and operating human resources (HR) shared service centers (SSC). CO Statement at 2. These new SINs covered "Private Shared Service Center[s] for Core HR Services" and "Private Shared Service Center[s] for non-Core HR Services." Among the new services was performance of compensation management (primarily payroll processing, frequently referred to as payroll). The RFP anticipated the award of FSS contracts with a base period of 5 years, followed by three 5-year option periods. The RFP provided that personnel action processing, compensation management, and benefits management were the three "core" services, and that nine other types of services were "non-core" services. RFP at 99-102. The proposal process had two stages. First, offerors were required to submit written proposals (limited to 150 pages for the technical volume). Those offerors whose written proposals were evaluated as acceptable were then provided instructions for a "technical and functional operational capability demonstration (OCD)." RFP at 134. The purpose of the demonstration was to "provide Selected Offerors the opportunity to demonstrate the capability of their proposed solution," and to "ask Offerors to demonstrate several specific requirements by running specific test cases using pre-defined data, and then [have] Offerors . . . demonstrate a number of additional requirements at [their] choosing from the list of self-evaluation requirements" in 24 hours spread over 3 days. RFP at 138. In recognition of the extensive requirements, the RFP also addressed the depth and focus of the demonstration: [GSA] understands that Selected Offerors may not be able to demonstrate all the elements of their solution and technical environment. After Offerors demonstrate the mandatory elements specified by the Federal government as part of the [demonstration], Selected Offerors are free to select elements to demonstrate, and the order in which they are presented . . . .