Career Systems Development Corporation

B-411346.10 Jul 18, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Career Systems Development Corporation (CSD), of West Henrietta, New York, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the Department of Labor's (DOL) award of a contract to Management & Training Corporation (MTC), of Centerville, Utah, under solicitation No. DOLJ13PA20010, which was issued for the operation of the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center (JCC) in Morganfield, Kentucky. CSD maintains that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its clearly meritorious protest. We deny the request. We deny the request. 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:  Career Systems Development Corporation--Costs File:  B-411346.10 Date:  July 18, 2018 Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Sarah Hansen, Esq., and William A. Roberts III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Peter J. Dickson, Esq., Dennis A. Adelson, Esq., and Vijaya S. Surampudi, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION Career Systems Development Corporation (CSD), of West Henrietta, New York, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) award of a contract to Management & Training Corporation (MTC), of Centerville, Utah, under solicitation No. DOLJ13PA20010, which was issued for the operation of the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center (JCC) in Morganfield, Kentucky.  CSD maintains that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its clearly meritorious protest. We deny the request. BACKGROUND CSD’s request follows a series of protests related to the agency’s efforts to select a contractor to operate the Clements JCC.[1]  The agency initially issued the request for proposals (RFP) in February 2013, seeking to award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, a cost‑plus‑incentive-fee contract for a 2-year base period with three option years.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP, at 1, 20.[2]  DOL originally awarded the Clements operations contract to CSD, but the agency took voluntary corrective action in May 2016 following a protest brought by MTC.  As part of the corrective action, which was to include a reevaluation of proposed costs and a new source selection decision, DOL requested in May 2017 that the eight firms in the competitive range submit revised cost proposals.  Protest, exh. 10, Corrective Action Email, May 2, 2016; AR, Tab 9, RFP amend. 9, at 1.  Firms also were permitted to submit “limited revisions” to their staff resources proposals if the changes were directly related to changes in the revised cost proposals.  AR, RFP amend. 10, at 2.  Thereafter, in November 2017, DOL completed its corrective action reevaluation and, this time, selected MTC, the incumbent contractor, for award.  Following a debriefing, CSD protested the award decision on December 13, 2017.  In its protest, CSD first challenged the agency’s evaluation of MTC’s cost proposal, alleging that the firm impermissibly revised its cost proposal to a greater extent than contemplated as part of the corrective action and alleging that the awardee’s proposed costs were unrealistic.  Protest, Dec. 13, 2017, at 10-19.  CSD also alleged that the agency unreasonably evaluated its and MTC’s past performance, as well as objected to the source selection decision.  Id. at 19-24. On January 12, 2018, DOL filed its agency report in which the agency defended its evaluation and award decision.  On January 16, following an initial review of the protest record, which now included both MTC’s revised cost proposal and revised staff resources proposal, counsel for CSD emailed agency counsel about two new concerns with the evaluation record.  See AR, Tab 21, MTC Revised Cost Proposal; Tab 23, MTC Revised Staff Resources Proposal; Request for Costs, encl. 1, Email from CSD Counsel to Agency Counsel, Jan.