CompTech-CDO, LLC

B-409949.2 Jan 06, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CompTech-CDO, LLC (CompTech), of Dayton, Ohio, protests the terms of amendment No. 3 to request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-14-R-D003, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for technical support services for the Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) and In-Transit Visibility (ITV) program for USTRANSCOM and other Department of Defense (DoD) agencies and departments. RFP at 46. The protester alleges that the RFP, as amended, is unduly restrictive of competition because it requires possession of a Top Secret facility clearance prior to time of award. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: CompTech-CDO, LLC File: B-409949.2 Date: January 6, 2015 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Marvin Kent Gibbs, Esq., Department of the Air Force; Kenneth M. Roth, Esq. and Richard A. Hopkins, Esq., United States Transportation Command, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation requirement that an offeror possess a Top Secret facility clearance at the time final proposal revisions are submitted does not unduly restrict competition where the record shows that the requirement is reasonably related to the agency’s needs. DECISION CompTech-CDO, LLC[1] (CompTech), of Dayton, Ohio, protests the terms of amendment No. 3 to request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-14-R-D003, issued by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for technical support services for the Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) and In-Transit Visibility (ITV) program for USTRANSCOM and other Department of Defense (DoD) agencies and departments.[2] RFP at 46. The protester alleges that the RFP, as amended, is unduly restrictive of competition because it requires possession of a Top Secret facility clearance prior to time of award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on October 31, 2013, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and two 1-year options, and the issuance of the first task order at the time of award. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the following three non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical, (2) staffing, and (3) past performance; and price. Id. at 18, 46, 48. When combined, all non-price factors are considered approximately equal to price. Id. at 18. Award was to be made on a best-value basis. The original due date for proposals was December 2, 2013. RFP at 1. As originally issued, the RFP required the awardee to possess a Top Secret facility clearance at time of award. Id. at 41, 107. While the RFP acknowledged that the majority of work under the ID/IQ contract would be performed at the Secret level, it also recognized that approximately 10 percent of the work would be at the Top Secret level. Id. at 54. Further, while the first task order to be issued would not include work at the Top Secret level, the contracting officer was aware that work was being performed under two ongoing Top Secret task orders, set to expire in March, 2014, and that a new task order would need to be awarded under this ID/IQ to continue that work.[3] Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement (COS) at 4. On November 19, 2013, the agency issued amendment No. 1 to the RFP, to permit offerors to possess only a Secret Facility clearance at time of award, and to require that they possess a Top Secret facility clearance by August 31, 2014.[4] COS at 5; RFP, amend. 1, at 8. RFP amendment No. 1 also stated that a failure to obtain the required Top Secret clearance by the August date would result in a bilateral no-cost contract termination. Id. The agency received nine proposals in response to the RFP, five of which were from firms that already had a Top Secret facility clearance. AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 17, 18, 23, 25, and 27. CompTech’s proposal stated that the firm was in the process of applying for a Secret clearance.[5] AR, Tab 11, Notice of Eligibility for Award. CompTech was selected for award and was so notified on March 7. A series of delays ensued. After a pre-award notice was issued, CompTech’s size was challenged to the SBA, and SBA subsequently determined that CompTech qualified as small under the applicable size standard. The CO learned, following the award, that CompTech did not yet have a Secret facility clearance, and notified CompTech on April 24, 2014, that it was ineligible for award on that basis. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.