Excellus Solutions, Inc.

B-410959.3 Jul 24, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Excellus Solutions, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Digital Management, Inc. (DMI), of Bethesda, Maryland by the Department of the Air Force under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-14-R-0029 for financial management information technology (IT) support services. Excellus argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable based on a mechanical application of an undisclosed staffing estimate. 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:      Excellus Solutions, Inc. File:                B-410959.3 Date:              July 24, 2015 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., and Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Koprince Law LLC, for the protester. Brandon Bodnar, Esq., David Metzger, Esq., and Kristen Ittig, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Digital Management, Inc., the intervenor. Capt. Adam N. Olsen, Capt. Christopher M. Kovach, and Maj. Damund E. Williams, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Brent Burris, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency mechanically applied an undisclosed staffing estimate when evaluating proposals is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency considered the protester’s proposed staffing plan and reasonably determined that it did not meet the requirements of the solicitation. DECISION Excellus Solutions, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Digital Management, Inc. (DMI), of Bethesda, Maryland by the Department of the Air Force under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-14-R-0029 for financial management information technology (IT) support services.  Excellus argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable based on a mechanical application of an undisclosed staffing estimate. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on September 19, 2014 to contractors holding an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under the Air Force’s Network-Centric Solutions-2 multiple-award contract program.[1]  The RFP anticipated the issuance of a task order with a 1-month orientation period, 11-month base period, and four 1-year options.  RFP at 2-12.  The services required under the RFP are to be performed at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, primarily on a fixed-price basis, with cost-reimbursable contract line items for travel.  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 1. The RFP advised offerors that the Air Force would evaluate proposals on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  RFP at 32.  For the non-price evaluation, the RFP provided that the agency would rate technical proposals as acceptable or unacceptable under two technical subfactors, staffing plan and professional compensation plan, and that a rating of unacceptable under either subfactor would render a proposal technically unacceptable overall.  Id. As relevant here, for the staffing plan subfactor, the RFP directed offerors to submit a detailed staffing plan, “reflecting a management and technical understanding of the complexity of the requirement.”  Id. at 29.  As part of their staffing plans, offerors were to identify the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) that they proposed for nine labor categories identified in the RFP.  Id.  The RFP established that the agency would evaluate whether offerors’ proposed staffing plans, to include their proposed FTE levels, were capable of performing the various requirements set forth in the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS).  Id.