Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. (FA8622-20-F-8236)

B-418440.3 Jul 16, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts, requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs it incurred in filing and pursuing its protests challenging the issuance of a task order to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., of Wakefield, Massachusetts, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8622-20-F-8236, issued by the Department of the Air Force for advisory and assistance services to support the agency's medium altitude unmanned aircraft systems program office. We deny the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Sumaria Systems, Inc.--Costs File:  B-418440.3 Date:  July 16, 2020 James Y. Boland, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where the protester’s single remaining initial protest ground was not clearly meritorious, and where the agency took prompt corrective action in response to supplemental protest grounds. DECISION Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts, requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs it incurred in filing and pursuing its protests challenging the issuance of a task order to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., of Wakefield, Massachusetts, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8622-20-F-8236, issued by the Department of the Air Force for advisory and assistance services to support the agency’s medium altitude unmanned aircraft systems program office. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The agency issued the FOPR on September 16, 2019, to holders of the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Small Business (OASIS-SB) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  The procurement was conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation section 16.505 procedures.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, FOPR Cover Letter.[1]  The FOPR sought a contractor to provide advisory and assistance services to support the agency’s medium altitude unmanned aircraft systems program office, which is responsible for “arming the warfighter with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle [(UAV)] solutions.”  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2; see also AR, Tab 7a, FOPR Performance Work Statement, at 8.  The estimated value of the task order over the possible 5-year period of performance is $248,000,000.  AR, Tab 3, Independent Government Cost Estimate, at 1. The FOPR provided for award to the highest technically rated offeror with a realistic and reasonable price, based on two evaluation factors:  contractor rating system[2] and cost/price.  AR, Tab 7d, FOPR Evaluation Criteria, Oct. 1, 2019, at 1, 3-4.  For the first factor, the FOPR established criteria for assigning points out of a maximum of 68,000 possible points, based on 32 subfactors grouped in the following four rating areas:  general, technical, Defense Security Services vulnerability assessment, and work sample contractor performance assessment report.  Id. at 4-18.  The FOPR provided that each offeror was to self-score its proposal against these 32 subfactors and submit, among other things, a self-scoring matrix worksheet and work samples to be used as substantiating data.  AR, Tab 7c, FOPR Instructions, Oct. 1, 2019, at 8; see also AR, Tab 7e, Self-Scoring Matrix, Oct. 1, 2019. The FOPR provided that the agency would rank the offerors by highest to lowest point score using the offerors’ self-scoring matrix worksheets, and first evaluate the proposal with the highest self-score and validate its self-score.  The FOPR included the following warning:  “Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single criterion, could result in the [evaluation t]eam determining that the [o]fferor’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal would be unawardable.”  AR, Tab 7d, FOPR Evaluation Criteria, at 4-5.  If that proposal’s self-score was validated, the agency would then evaluate that offeror’s cost/price and, if its cost/price was found to be realistic and reasonable, issue the task order to that offeror.  Id.