Sumaria Systems, Inc.

B-413508.2 Dec 29, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Fairborn, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8650-16-F-4108 issued by the Department of the Air Force for laboratory support services. Sumaria challenges the agency's decision to take corrective action and argues that the terms of the solicitation as they relate to key personnel are unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest 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:  Sumaria Systems, Inc. File:  B-413508.2 Date:  December 29, 2016 James Y. Boland, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Lt. Col. Damund E. Williams, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s decision to take corrective action is dismissed where the protester submitted an agency-level protest, which was denied, and the protester failed to protest to our Office within 10 days. 2.  Protest challenging the terms of the solicitation with respect to key personnel requirements as being unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the record shows that the terms of the solicitation were reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. DECISION Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Fairborn, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8650-16-F-4108 issued by the Department of the Air Force for laboratory support services.  Sumaria  challenges the agency’s decision to take corrective action and argues that the terms of the solicitation as they relate to key personnel are unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 9, 2016, sought proposals from holders of General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) - Small Business Pool 3 contracts to provide laboratory support services at the Air Force Research Laboratory located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio.  RFP at 1.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering technical approach, management approach, price and past performance factors.  Id. at 3. Under the technical approach factor, the government was to evaluate the staffing proposed by offerors against the performance work statement (PWS). This evaluation would include an assessment of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel, skill mix, skill levels, specific qualifications, and identified individuals.  RFP at 6.  Moreover, under the management approach factor, the agency was to assess an offeror’s contract staffing, including its proposed approach to staffing.  Id. at 7. The scope of work required offerors to provide various personnel including, as relevant here, a contract program manager and an engineering technician VI (Lead Instrumentation Technician).  PWS, at 17, 26-27.  Of the 31 FTE positions identified in the RFP, 26 were covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA), including the Lead Instrumentation Technician (LIT).  RFP, Attachment 3, Historical Labor, at 1.  The position description for the LIT was as follows: [P]roviding training to lower level technicians on laboratory equipment, materials, and advanced instrumentation installation techniques and procedures, performs sensor installation with little to no supervision, assists instrumentation engineer with the development of non-standard or unique sensor installation requirements, verifies all installations using standard instrumentation processes, leads the transport and installation of the test article along with the sensor connection and final end-to-end checkout, and provides input on instrumentation documentation and reporting. The Lead Instrumentation Technician is considered to be an expert in all areas of instrumentation. PWS at 26-27. Proposals were submitted by Sumaria, Peerless and a third firm.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 8, Service Designated Official Decision Document (SDODD), at 1.  Sumaria’s evaluated price was $29,003,422 whereas Peerless’ price was $30,117,089.  Id. at 7.  While Sumaria submitted the lowest-priced proposal, the firm’s proposal was rated unacceptable under the technical approach factor due to its assessed failure to provide the qualifications for the contract program manager in its proposal.  Id. at 5.  The agency awarded a task order to Peerless as the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  Id.