Fortem Solutions, LLC

B-415716.3 Jun 20, 2018 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Veteran Technology Integrators, LLC, (VTI) of Arlington, Virginia, protests the decision by the Department of the Air Force to exclude its proposal from competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8771-17-R-1000 for information technology (IT) services. The protester maintains that the agency unreasonably excluded its proposal from competition when it had in its possession all of the information necessary to evaluate VTI's proposal. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  Veteran Technology Integrators, LLC File:  B-415716.3 Date:  June 20, 2018 Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Eric S. Crusius, Esq., and Mitchell A. Bashur, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Kevin P. Stiens, and Rachell J. Reilly, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s exclusion of protester’s proposal from the competition is sustained where the agency’s basis for excluding the protester’s proposal was unreasonable. DECISION Veteran Technology Integrators, LLC, (VTI) of Arlington, Virginia, protests the decision by the Department of the Air Force to exclude its proposal from competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8771-17-R-1000 for information technology (IT) services.[1]  The protester maintains that the agency unreasonably excluded its proposal from competition when it had in its possession all of the information necessary to evaluate VTI’s proposal. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, known as the Small Business Enterprise Application Solutions (SBEAS) solicitation, was issued on September 28, 2017, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, and contemplated the award of 40 multiple award, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP at 162.[2]  The scope of the SBEAS RFP included a “comprehensive suite of IT services and IT solutions to support IT systems and software development in a variety of environments and infrastructures.”  Id. at 130.  Additional IT services in the solicitation included, but were not limited to, “documentation, operations, deployment, cybersecurity, configuration management, training, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product management and utilization, technology refresh, data and information services, information display services and business analysis for IT programs.”  Id. at 130.  Proposals were to be evaluated based on the technical experience and past performance factors.  Id.  The past performance factor was made up of the following three subfactors in descending order of importance:  life-cycle software services, cybersecurity, and information technology business analysis. [3]  Id. at 162.  Award was to be made on a past performance tradeoff basis among technically acceptable offerors, using the three past performance subfactors.  Id. at 162.   As relevant to this protest, section L of the solicitation instructed offerors that “[t]he proposal shall be clear, specific, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.”  Id. at 142.  Section L also stated that “[n]on-conformance with the instructions provided in this [instructions to offerors] ITO may result in an [o]fferor’s proposal being rejected from the competition.”  Id. (emphasis omitted, italics included).  The solicitation provided that offerors should submit their proposals in four volumes:  capability maturity model integration (CMMI) documentation, technical experience, past performance, and contract documentation.  Id. at 145.  Each offeror was to include, in its technical experience volume, a maximum of six contract references that addressed the criteria of the technical experience factor.  Id. at 149.  The technical experience factor was made up of ten criteria that were further broken down into sub-elements.[4]  Id. at 150-155.  The solicitation provided that any contract references used in the technical experience volume of an offeror’s proposal, must also be included in its past performance volume.  Id. at 150. The RFP’s instructions also directed offerors to complete a cross-reference matrix, which was attached to the solicitation.  Id.