Analytical Solutions by Kline, LLC

B-417161,B-417161.2 Mar 12, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Analytical Solutions by Kline, LLC (ASK), of Cleveland, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 28321319R00000004, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for information technology (IT) support services. ASK asserts that the terms of the RFP are overly restrictive of competition, and that the agency engaged in improper bundling of contract requirements. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it 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: Analytical Solutions by Kline, LLC File: B-417161; B-417161.2 Date: March 12, 2019 Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Mitchell A. Bashur, Esq., and Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP; and Cynthia Kline, Analytical Solutions by Kline, LLC, for the protester. Uri R. Ko, Esq., Ellen Rothschild, Esq., and Alice M. Somers, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where a solicitation provides for two different types of certifications through which an offeror may meet a quality certification requirement, protest challenging only one type of certification as unduly restrictive of competition is dismissed. 2. Protest challenging solicitation as unduly restrictive because it requires offerors to demonstrate experience through contract references under which they have performed for two or more years is denied where the protester's argument is based on a misinterpretation of the solicitation. 3. Protest challenging a solicitation term as unduly restrictive where the term limits offerors to submitting only three contract references to show past performance is denied where the agency has shown a reasonable basis for this limitation. 4. Protest that the agency engaged in improper bundling of contract requirements is dismissed as untimely where the agency's intent to combine contract requirements was apparent from the terms of the solicitation and the protester failed to challenge this aspect of the solicitation until after the closing time for receipt of proposals. DECISION Analytical Solutions by Kline, LLC (ASK), of Cleveland, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 28321319R00000004, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for information technology (IT) support services. ASK asserts that the terms of the RFP are overly restrictive of competition, and that the agency engaged in improper bundling of contract requirements. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside on October 4, 2018, seeking proposals for enterprise small business IT support services (ESBITSS). Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFP at 1.1 Contract awardees are expected to provide "the expertise, technical knowledge, IT support personnel, and other related resources necessary to support the entire spectrum of IT support at SSA" for the following four task areas: infrastructure, telecommunications environment, and help desk support; software engineering, systems security, and management support; database and data administration; and lifecycle activities and development operations. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 108. In issuing the ESBITSS RFP, the agency combined and replaced three existing contract vehicles: a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for IT support services; an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for IT engineering support services; and a single-award contract for help-desk initiative support services. RFP, Amend. 2, ESBITSS Overview Document, at 314. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate proposals under the following four phases: (1) SSA accessibility requirements and required quality certification; (2) relevant experience requirements; (3) detailed corporate experience; and (4) past performance. RFP, Amend. 4, § E2-3, at 413-15, 420-23. Proposals were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis for the first two phases; if a proposal did not meet the requirements of either phase 1 or phase 2, it would not be evaluated further or considered for award. Id. at 413-14. Under phase 3, the agency would evaluate the breadth and depth of the offeror's experience in the four task areas identified in the SOW. Id. at 414. Offerors that reached phase 4 would be evaluated for past performance. Id. at 415. The RFP stated that final awards would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis where the past performance factor would be more important than price. Id. at 427-28. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts. Id.