Ahtna-RDI JV, Inc. (1305M319RNFFS0008)

B-418012.6,B-418012.7 Jan 05, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ahtna RDI, JV, LLC (ARJV), a small business located in Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to IT Objects, LLC (ITO), a small business concern located in Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M319RNFFS0008, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for information technology services including software development and systems administration, for the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The protester alleges that the agency improperly determined its proposal ineligible for award based on the protester's failure to include overtime rates in its price schedule. The protester also argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff analysis were unreasonable. 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:  Ahtna-RDI JV, Inc. File:  B-418012.6; B-418012.7 Date:  January 5, 2021 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., and Miles McCann, Esq., Ward & Berry PLLC, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for IT Objects, LLC, the intervenor. James Rhodes, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly determined protester’s proposal ineligible for award because it failed to comply with solicitation requirements is denied where the record shows that the protester did not submit a complete price schedule that included overtime rates as required by the solicitation. DECISION   Ahtna RDI, JV, LLC (ARJV), a small business located in Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to IT Objects, LLC (ITO), a small business concern located in Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M319RNFFS0008, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for information technology services including software development and systems administration, for the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  The protester alleges that the agency improperly determined its proposal ineligible for award based on the protester’s failure to include overtime rates in its price schedule.  The protester also argues that the agency’s evaluation of proposals and best‑value tradeoff analysis were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 23, 2019, as a set‑aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFP at 1.[1]  The solicitation used acquisition procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in conjunction with FAR part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.  RFP at 37; COS at 2.  The successful offeror will program new and existing electronic reporting systems, develop fisheries management applications, and provide associated technical support for NMFS’s four major programs.[2]  RFP at 43‑44.  The solicitation contemplated award of a single indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, with the potential for labor hour or fixed‑price type orders and an ordering period of three years. The contract was to be awarded on a best‑value tradeoff basis, with non‑price evaluation factors (technical capability, staffing and management plan, and past performance) significantly more important than price.  Id. at 18, 69, 72.  The RFP provided that proposals were expected to conform to solicitation provisions and be prepared pursuant to proposal preparation instructions, which required offerors to adhere to a pricing schedule and directed that overtime rates be included in the offer.  Id. at 66, 68‑69.  The RFP’s evaluation criteria informed firms that the price evaluation would determine whether prices were “complete, fair, and reasonable” and reiterated that overtime rates must be included in the proposal.  Id. at 70.  Offerors were also to provide pricing for a sample task order using an RFP-provided pricing spreadsheet, which included a pre-entered, not-to-exceed, $17,000 figure for overtime costs for each performance year.  Id. at 61‑62, 69, 70 Five offerors, including ITO and ARJV, submitted proposals.  COS at 6.  After evaluating the proposals, the agency made award to ARJV on September 13, which ITO protested.  Id.  We sustained the protest on the basis that ARJV’s proposal failed to provide a letter of commitment for a proposed key person, which was a material requirement of the solicitation.  IT Objects, LLC, B-418012, B-418012.2, Jan.