Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC

B-411065 May 01, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC, (BAHES) of Linthicum, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to DRS Technical Services, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, and protests the subsequent modification of that order, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. R2-3G-0764, issued by the Department of the Army for aircrew training support services. BAHES contends that the agency was required to amend the solicitation because the modification materially altered the basis on which the task order was competed. The protester also challenges the Army's evaluation of DRS's proposal and source selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC File: B-411065 Date: May 1, 2015 Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., and Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for the protester. David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq., and Jason M. Crawford, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for DRS Technical Services, Inc., the intervenor. Melissa Lloyd, Esq., David A. Balaban, Esq., and Peter S. Kozlowski, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging modification of a task order, approximately one month after the order was issued, to redesignate labor categories as subject to the Service Contract Act, is denied where the modification was not outside the scope of the underlying task order and the agency reasonably concluded, prior to award, that amending the solicitation was not required. 2. Protester’s challenge to the agency’s source selection decision and evaluation of the awardee’s price/cost and technical proposals is dismissed where protester would not be next in line for award even if its protest were sustained. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC, (BAHES) of Linthicum, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to DRS Technical Services, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, and protests the subsequent modification of that order, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. R2-3G-0764, issued by the Department of the Army for aircrew training support services. BAHES contends that the agency was required to amend the solicitation because the modification materially altered the basis on which the task order was competed. The protester also challenges the Army’s evaluation of DRS’s proposal and source selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The RTEP was issued on September 25, 2014, to 18 firms holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the Army’s Rapid Response Third Generation (R2-3G) program, and provided for the issuance of a hybrid (largely cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF)) task order for a 30-day transition period, a 1-year base period, and four 6-month option periods.[1] Agency Report (AR) at 2; RTEP at 1, 6.[2] The Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, which administers the R2-3G IDIQ contracts, issued the RTEP on behalf of the Air Force for services to support testing, training, and range activities for remotely piloted aircraft at military bases in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York. RTEP at 1; attach. 1, Draft Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 8-9. The RTEP stated that the task order would be issued on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, and provided detailed instructions for submitting technical and cost/price proposals. RTEP at 1-11. In their technical proposals, offerors were to propose key personnel and various positions based on required labor categories[3] and hours specified in the solicitation for each performance site. Id. at 4-5; attach 1, Draft Task Order, § 3.5, Key Personnel, at 14-15; § G.2, LOE, at 20, attach. 2, Manpower Requirements. The RTEP indicated that technical proposals would be evaluated as pass or fail based on whether the offeror met the minimum solicitation requirements. RTEP at 11. In their cost/price proposals, offerors were to propose a fixed price for the transition period, a CPFF for services for the base period and each option period, and costs for materials and travel (not-to-exceed specified ceilings).[4] RTEP attach. 1, Draft Task Order, § B, Schedule, at 2-6. Offerors and proposed subcontractors were to itemize their cost elements such as overhead and general and administrative costs (G&A) using a table provided with the solicitation. RTEP at 7-8; see attach. 3, Cost Breakdown, at 14.