Leader Communications, Inc.

B-417152.2,B-417152.3 Jun 26, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leader Communications, Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of a task order to Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8222-18-R-5006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support for the Air Force Sustainment Center. Leader asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We dismiss in part and deny in part 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:  Leader Communications, Inc. File:  B-417152.2; B-417152.3 Date:  June 26, 2019 Maria Panichelli, Esq., and Michael Richard, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for the protester. Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Where protester fails to address agency’s comments, GAO considers protest issue abandoned. 2.  Where protester first raises new arguments in comments on the agency report that could have been raised in initial protest, the later raised issues are untimely. 3.  Procuring agency is not required to reopen discussions to advise protester of risks that are first introduced when it revises its proposal. 4.  Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions because it did not advise protester of risks that were present in its initial proposal is denied where record demonstrates that protester was not prejudiced by the failure to hold discussions with respect to these risks because even if the risks were eliminated from the proposal protester would not receive the task order.  DECISION Leader Communications, Inc., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the issuance of a task order to Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8222-18-R-5006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support for the Air Force Sustainment Center.  Leader asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and failed to engage in meaningful discussions.  We dismiss in part and deny in part the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505, to contractors in the General Services Administration One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services small business pool 3.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, FOPR Letter, at 1.  The solicitation sought a contractor to provide sustainment enabling functions supporting the Air Force Sustainment Center/Logistics in four capability areas: strategic planning; resource management; process management and guidance; and sustainment performance management through a variety of tasks including program management, information technology, and supply chain planning.  Id., AR, Tab 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 5. The solicitation advised offerors that the task order would be issued on a best-value basis considering technical and price factors, and utilizing a process known as M3, which quantifies the qualitative evaluation for purposes of identifying the proposal that represents the best value.  AR, Tab 6, FOPR Letter, at 1; Tab 5, Evaluation Criteria, at 1; Tab 4, Instruction to Offerors, at 2.  The technical factor was comprised of six equally weighted criteria.  Technical criterion 1 required offerors to describe their overall approach to satisfy the solicitation requirements.  AR, Tab 5, Evaluation Criteria.  Technical criteria 2 through 6 each required the offerors to demonstrate their experience, qualifications and capability to satisfy a specified section of the PWS.  Id.    Pursuant to the M3 evaluation process, the total possible evaluated score for the technical and price factors was 1,000 points; technical was worth 60 percent of the total score (600 points) and price was worth 40 percent of the score (400 points).  AR, Tab 5, Evaluation Criteria, at 1.  In addition, each technical criterion was evaluated for acceptability and risk, and was assigned a raw score of 0 through 5.[1]  AR, Tab 4, Instructions to Offerors, at 2, 4-5.  The raw scores for the technical factor and evaluated prices were converted to scores based on the total possible points available.