Xcellent Technology Solutions, LLC

B-412591.3 Nov 14, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Xcellent Technology Solutions (XTS), LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, of Haymarket, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its first protest (B-412591) and second protest (B-412591.2), which challenged the award of a contract to Cherokee Nation Technologies, Inc., a tribally-owned concern, of Catoosa, Oklahoma, by the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. G14PS00135, for science and technological support services. The protester argues that both protests were clearly meritorious and that the agency's corrective action in response to the first protest failed to address the issues raised in that protest, which required the protester to file its second 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:  Xcellent Technology Solutions, LLC--Costs File:  B-412591.3 Date:  November 14, 2016 Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., and Scott W. Woehr, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for the protester. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that GAO recommend reimbursement of the protester’s costs of filing and pursuing its initial protest, which resulted in corrective action, and its second protest, which also resulted in corrective action, is denied where the agency did not unduly delay in taking corrective action in response to the protests and where the protests were not clearly meritorious.  DECISION Xcellent Technology Solutions (XTS), LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, of Haymarket, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its first protest (B‑412591) and second protest (B-412591.2), which challenged the award of a contract to Cherokee Nation Technologies, Inc., a tribally-owned concern, of Catoosa, Oklahoma, by the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. G14PS00135, for science and technological support services.  The protester argues that both protests were clearly meritorious and that the agency’s corrective action in response to the first protest failed to address the issues raised in that protest, which required the protester to file its second protest. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on October 7, 2014, and sought proposals to provide science and technological support services for USGS science centers.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1-2; RFP at 6.[1]  The solicitation was a set-aside under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program.  RFP at 1.  The RFP anticipated the award of up to six multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, one for each of six service areas, for a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options.  Id. at 2-3, 6‑13.  The RFP stated award would be made on a best-value basis considering five evaluation factors, one of which included price.  The price evaluation was to consider the realism and reasonableness of offerors’ prices.  Id.  at 69.  Offerors were to propose loaded labor rates for each labor category identified in RFP attachment A, and labor rates and hours for tasks in response to three performance work statements (PWSs) in RFP attachment B.  Id. USGS received 23 proposals by the closing date of November 26.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 3-4.  The agency established a competitive range of four offerors, including Cherokee and XTS, and conducted discussions with those offerors and received revised proposals.  Id. at 19.  As relevant here, the agency found that Cherokee’s proposal was higher-rated under the non-price factors and had a lower evaluated price as compared to XTS’s proposal.  Id.