Absolute Business Solutions, Inc. (W911W4-19-R-IIS1)

B-418184 Jan 21, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Absolute Business Solutions, Inc. (ABS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The Buffalo Group (TBG), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4-19-R-IIS1 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, for intelligence support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate the awardee's alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI), and challenges the evaluation of proposals under the cost and non-cost factors. 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:  Absolute Business Solutions, Inc. File:  B-418184 Date:  January 21, 2020 Lee Dougherty, Esq., Effectus, PLLC, for the protester. David Edelstein, Esq., Laurence Schor, Esq., and Allison Geewax, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC, for The Buffalo Group, the intervenor. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Harry M. Parent, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Hernandez, and Captain Jeremy D. Burkhart, Department of the Army, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency failed to consider the awardee’s alleged organizational conflict of interest is denied where the protester’s allegation amounts to a dispute between private parties, which our Office will not review. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the technical and management factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest that the agency’s cost realism analysis of the awardee’s proposal was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable. DECISION Absolute Business Solutions, Inc. (ABS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The Buffalo Group (TBG), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4-19-R-IIS1 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, for intelligence support services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate the awardee’s alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI), and challenges the evaluation of proposals under the cost and non-cost factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RTOP, issued on June 13, 2019, sought proposals from holders of the agency’s global intelligence support services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide intelligence information services and intelligence automation support (IIS/IAS).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTOP at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a task order on a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort term basis for labor, and a cost-no-fee basis for other direct costs.  Id.  The resulting order was to include one 9-month base period, and four option years.  Id. at 2-15. Proposals were to be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis following the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505.  Id. at 38.  The following factors were to be considered, in descending order of importance:  (1) technical factor, (2) management factor, and (3) cost/price (cost).  Id. at 40.  Included under the technical factor were three subfactors:  (1) development and programming support of .Net and SharePoint applications (subfactor 1); (2) administrative support to Microsoft and VMware environments (subfactor 2); and (3) administrative support to Microsoft SQL database environments (subfactor 3).  Id. at 41‑42.  The management factor included two subfactors:  staffing plan and transition-in plan.  Id. at 42.  When combined, the non-cost factors were to be significantly more important than cost.  Id.  However, the solicitation cautioned that “the closer the [o]fferors’ evaluations are in the non-cost. . . factors, the more important the cost [factor] becomes in the decision.”  Id. at 40-41.  The cost evaluation was to consider total evaluated price (TEP), including whether the TEP is reasonable, realistic, complete and balanced.  Id. at 43-44.  Under the terms of the solicitation, the TEP was to equal the most probable cost to the government (MPC).  Id.