American Systems Corporation

B-417387,B-417387.2 Jun 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Systems Corporation (ASC), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Ideal Innovations, Inc. (I3), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-19-00001, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for latent print support services in Quantico, Virginia, and Huntsville, Alabama. ASC argues that I3 should have been ineligible for award because it materially misrepresented the availability of certain key personnel, and failed to provide letters of intent for those personnel, as required by the RFP. The protester also challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the technical factors, as well as the best-value decision. 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: American Systems Corporation File: B-417387; B-417387.2 Date: June 11, 2019 Katherine Burrows, Esq., and Nathanael D. Hartland, Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, for the protester. John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Ideal Innovations, Inc., the intervenor. Michael P. Giordano, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee engaged in an impermissible bait and switch of its key personnel is denied where there is no evidence that awardee misrepresented the availability, or sought to replace, its key personnel. 2. Protest is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that awardee's letters of intent provided reasonable assurance that the individuals would be available to perform on the contract. 3. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of its proposal is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION American Systems Corporation (ASC), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Ideal Innovations, Inc. (I3), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-19-00001, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for latent print support services in Quantico, Virginia, and Huntsville, Alabama. ASC argues that I3 should have been ineligible for award because it materially misrepresented the availability of certain key personnel, and failed to provide letters of intent for those personnel, as required by the RFP. The protester also challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the technical factors, as well as the best-value decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 5, 2018, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, contemplated the award of a single IDIQ contract for latent print support services, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 2, 12, 68. The statement of work required the provision of various forensic and administrative services related to latent print support, including latent print examination services, evidence inventory and processing services, evidence preservation, and program management services. Id. at 4-8. The RFP provided that at least two task orders would be issued, on a combined labor hour and fixed-price basis, and that additional task orders could be awarded on a labor hour basis. Id. at 55. The RFP advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, utilizing the following factors: management, technical, past performance, and price. Id. at 68. The RFP further provided that the management and technical factors were equally important, but both were more important than past performance, and all three factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 69. Moreover, the RFP provided that under the management and technical factors, the agency would assign proposals one of the following color/adjectival ratings: blue/superior, green/good, yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable. Id. The management factor comprised the following three subfactors: staffing, program management, and transition. Id. at 69-70. The staffing and program management subfactors were of equal importance, and, overall, more important than the transition subfactor. Id. at 69.