Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc.

B-411795 Oct 23, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. (DysTech), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. (CTEC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. PSS000-15-R-0002, for educational services. DysTech asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. 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:  Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. File:  B-411795 Date:  October 23, 2015 Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for the protester. Richard B. O'Keeffe Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the intervenor. Maj. Christopher C. Cross, Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated protester’s proposed staffing approach as unacceptable where the protester relied on staff assigned to a contract at another agency or to another function to conduct mobile educational workshops, subject to the availability of such staff, thereby calling into question the likely availability of the required staff. DECISION Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. (DysTech), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s award of a contract to Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. (CTEC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. PSS000-15-R-0002, for educational services.  DysTech  asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated a competition among small business concerns that hold indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts under the Army’s Personnel Services and Support Multiple Award Task Order Contract program.  The solicitation provided for issuance of a task order, with a 60-day phase-in period, 10‑month base period, two 12-month options, and an option to extend for 6 months, for education counseling, academic and career workshops, and higher education track classes, for service members being separated from active duty (transitioning students).[1]  Vendors were required to provide services at installations and satellite locations, and to provide workshops at mobile locations, inside (CONUS) and outside (OCONUS) the continental United States.  Performance Work Statement § 1.4.5.  The solicitation provided that the task order would be issued to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  RFTOP at 79.  Proposals were to be evaluated under three evaluation factors:  (1) technical, including elements (“questions in evaluating technical proposals”) for staffing approach, training plan, approach to minimizing turnover, ability to manage a dispersed workforce, and experience; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  RFTOP at 79-80.  The technical factor and elements were to be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable; a rating of unacceptable under any element rendered the proposal ineligible for award.[2]  Id.  Regarding price, offerors were required to propose daily unit prices for the phase-in period, monthly prices for workload support, unit prices for higher track classes, unit prices for mobile component support, and travel expenses.  RFTOP, Bid Schedule. Six vendors responded to the solicitation.  Following the evaluation, DysTech’s proposal was found unacceptable under the staffing element, and therefore ineligible for award.  After a written debriefing, DysTech filed this protest with our Office. Discussion DysTech asserts that the agency unreasonably found its proposal unacceptable under the staffing element.  With respect to staffing, the solicitation provided that the government would evaluate whether the offerors’ “labor mix, labor hours, qualifications and cross-utilization of proposed workforce . . .