Applied Research Solutions

B-414719 Aug 28, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Applied Research Solutions (ARS), of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the issuance of a task order to Oasis Systems, LLC, of Lexington, Massachusetts, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. FA4890-16-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Air Combat Command (ACC) Directorate of Strategic Plans, Programs, Requirements and Assessments (A5/8/9) staff support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of ARS' prices as unrealistically low and the subsequent exclusion of ARS' proposal from consideration for award. 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:  Applied Research Solutions File:  B-414719 Date:  August 28, 2017 Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Anthony M. Busch, Esq., and Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, for the protester. Scott A. Freling, Esq., Tyler Evans, Esq., and Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for Oasis Systems, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Michael G. McCormack, Esq., and Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's price realism analysis is denied where the record shows the agency's analysis was reasonable. DECISION Applied Research Solutions (ARS), of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the issuance of a task order to Oasis Systems, LLC, of Lexington, Massachusetts, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. FA4890-16-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Air Force for Air Combat Command (ACC) Directorate of Strategic Plans, Programs, Requirements and Assessments (A5/8/9) staff support services.  The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of ARS' prices as unrealistically low and the subsequent exclusion of ARS' proposal from consideration for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The purpose of this solicitation is to provide the Air Force with staff support in the areas of core function team, weapons systems team, and resource management.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, Revised Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 2.  The current requirement is a combination of two existing task order (TO) requirements:  FA4890-12-D-0014-0092 (TO 0092), and FA4890-12-D-0007-0060 (TO 0060).  Both of these task orders, and now this solicitation, require the services of experienced personnel, some of which are in high demand.  Consequently, the agency has experienced retention issues with TO 0092.  AR, Tab 11, Task Order Selection Document (TOSD), at 15.  At the salaries offered, the contractor has been able to retain most of the workforce, with a small amount of turnover, but it has had "a hard time replacing [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] when they left the contract."  Id.  Fourteen positions over the last 11 months have been vacant, and 5 critical positions went unfilled.  See id.  Similarly, the contractor on TO 0060 "had difficulty filling critical positions."  Id. The agency issued the solicitation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the General Services Administration's One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services small business multiple award contract and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505.[1]  AR, Attach. 4b, TORP Attach. 2, Evaluation Methodology and Criteria, at 1.  The task order will have a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.  AR, Tab 4a, Revised PWS, at 26.  The agency contemplated a fixed-price, level-of-effort task order would be issued to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable proposal that conforms to the solicitation's requirements.  AR, Tab 4b, TORP Attach. 2, Evaluation Methodology and Criteria, at 1-2.  The solicitation contained a technical and a price evaluation factor.  Id. at 4-5.  Technical proposals would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.  Id. at 4.  With respect to the price factor, the TORP stated that the agency would conduct a price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable.  Id. at 5.  The TORP further stated that an "exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror's proposal."  Id. For the price proposals, offerors were required to submit a pricing template spreadsheet.  Id. at 3.  The TORP instructions for completing the pricing template advised offerors that, "[i]f required, enter the proposed cost elements for each labor category or enter the Loaded Rate."[2]  AR, Tab 2d, TORP, attach. 4, Instruction 6.  The spreadsheet contained a column for the "Loaded Rate."  Id.