Government Contract Solutions, LLC

B-414000 Jan 18, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Government Contract Solutions, Inc. (GCS), of McLean, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to Potomac Wave Consulting, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, pursuant to an unnumbered task order proposal request (TOPR) for comptroller support. The protester challenges DIA's evaluation of its technical proposal. 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:  Government Contract Solutions, LLC File:  B-414000 Date:  January 18, 2017 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the protester. LtC Gregory J. Fike, Esq., Jessica Gill, Esq., Max D. Houtz, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging two evaluator findings of significant weakness is denied where record demonstrates reasonable basis for the findings. DECISION Government Contract Solutions, Inc. (GCS), of McLean, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to Potomac Wave Consulting, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, pursuant to an unnumbered task order proposal request (TOPR) for comptroller support.  The protester challenges DIA’s evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The TOPR, which was issued on June 2, 2016, sought support for accounting operations, reconciling Fund Balance with Treasury, financial reporting, internal controls, and financial statement audit liaison functions.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; TOPR Statement of Work (SOW) at 1.  The solicitation was issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505 to each of the seven awardees under the Solutions for Intelligence Financial Management II (SIFM II) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The TOPR contemplated issuance of the task order to the contractor whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical approach and price, with technical approach of lesser importance than price.  The technical approach factor was comprised of four subfactors:  (1) FACTS [Financial Accounting Corporate Tracking System] System Accountant/Data Validation; (2) Financial Reporting and Property Accounting; (3) Audit Support/Management Control Program; and (4) Accounting Operations, Fund Balance with Treasury Support.  TOPR at 4-5.  Subfactor 1 was more important than subfactors 2 and 3, which were of equal importance and of greater importance than subfactor 4.  Id. at 4.  Proposals were to be rated under the technical approach factor and subfactors as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 5. The agency received six proposals in response to the TOPR, including proposals from GCS and Potomac Wave.  A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the proposals and rated the proposals of GCS and Potomac Wave as follows:  Offeror Price Overall Technical Technical Subfactor 1 Technical Subfactor 2 Technical Subfactor 3 Technical Subfactor 4 Potomac Wave $38,396,830 Outstanding Outstanding Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable GCS $34,365,214 Marginal Marginal Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Protest at 3; see also COS at 4.  Under subfactor 1 (FACTS System Accountant/ Data Validation), the evaluators identified two significant weaknesses in the protester’s proposal (which are the subject of this protest and are discussed in detail below).[1] After considering the findings of the TET and offerors’ proposed prices, the source selection authority determined that Potomac Wave’s proposal represented the best value to the government.  The agency issued a task order to Potomac Wave on September 20.  After receiving notification of the award and a debriefing, GCS protested to our Office on October 12.[2] DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under subfactor 1, arguing that the two findings of significant weakness were without basis and that the resulting rating of marginal (for both the subfactor and the overall factor) was unreasonable. The evaluation of proposals in a task order competition, including the determination of the relative merits of proposals, is primarily a matter within the contracting agency’s discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Readiness Mgmt. Support, L.C., B-413207, B-413207.2, Sept. 7, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 271 at 6.