IT Shows, Inc.

B-411994.4 May 08, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Social Solutions International, Inc., requests that we recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the award of a contract to IT Shows, Inc., by the United States Agency for International Development under request for proposals No. SOL-OAA-14-000024 for staffing support services for the agency's global health programs. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. We grant the request in part and deny 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:  Social Solutions International, Inc.--Costs File:  B-411994.4 Date:  May 8, 2017 David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP; and Bryan T. Bunting, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the requester. R. René Dupuy, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s request that GAO recommend reimbursement of protest costs is granted in part where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to certain clearly meritorious protest grounds, and denied in part, where the other protest grounds were not clearly meritorious and are readily severable. DECISION Social Solutions International, Inc., requests that we recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the award of a contract to IT Shows, Inc., by the United States Agency for International Development under request for proposals No. SOL-OAA-14-000024 for staffing support services for the agency’s global health programs. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The procurement at issue was known as the Global Health Support Initiative III, or GHSI-III.  See RFP at 8.[1]  The solicitation was issued on March 7, 2014, as a total small business set‑aside and contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 5-year period of performance.  RFP at 3-4, 7, 32.  The award was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following five factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, corporate/institutional capability, past performance, personnel, and cost.  Id. at 103-05.  The technical approach factor included two elements:  performance plan and transition plan.  Id. at 103.  The corporate/institutional capability factor included three elements:  recruiting; operational systems; and large-scale, overseas surge or emergency requirements.  Id. The solicitation included evaluation criteria for each of the factors.  Several are relevant here.  First, under the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the realism of the offerors’ proposed costs.  RFP at 104-05.  The proposed costs were to include indirect costs, such as fringe, overhead, and general and administrative (G&A) costs.  Id. at 5, 97-99.  For these costs, the solicitation contemplated that offerors would propose both provisional and ceiling indirect cost rates.  See id. at 99, 104.  As to which of these rates would be used in the cost evaluation, the solicitation stated:  “For cost evaluation purposes, the ceiling . . . for indirect costs . . . will be used for the cost realism analysis.”  Id. at 99. As also relevant, under the technical approach factor, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s “ability to track all costs against all elements and bill each cost against the elements obligated for those costs.”  RFP at 103.  Additionally, under the surge requirement element of the corporate/institutional capability factor, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s ability to “quickly recruit and place technical experts.”  Id.  Finally, although not an evaluation criterion, the solicitation incorporated the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.219‑14, Limitations on Subcontracting.  Id. at 70. The agency received a number of proposals by the solicitation’s closing date, including proposals from Social Solutions and IT Shows.  A technical evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated the proposals under the non-cost factors.  Under each factor, the TEC assessed strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.  AR, Tab 29, Final TEC Mem., at 6-21.  Also under each factor, the TEC assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory, poor, or unacceptable.  Id. at 5.  Using these same ratings, the TEC assigned overall consensus ratings to the proposals.  Id.