STG LLC (W91QVN-19-R-0148)

B-418490.3 Dec 08, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights STG LLC, of Reston, Virginia, requests that our Office reconsider our decision in STG LLC, B-418490, B-418490.2, May 19, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 179, where we denied the protester's challenge to the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), also of Reston, Virginia. The Department of the Army issued the task order under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-19-R-0148, for cybersecurity, network operations, and maintenance of information technology support. The protester requests that we reconsider our decision on the basis that it contained errors of fact and law. Specifically, STG argues these errors resulted in a decision that wrongly concluded the agency did not perform an impermissible price realism analysis. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  STG LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-418490.3 Date:  December 8, 2021 Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Esq., and John M. Satira, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester Major Felix S. Mason, Major Abraham L. Young, and Lieutenant Colonel Stephen M. Hernandez, Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., Ralph O. White, Esq., and Kenneth E. Patton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reconsideration of a prior decision is denied based on a conclusion that the decision did not contain an error of fact or law. DECISION STG LLC, of Reston, Virginia, requests that our Office reconsider our decision in STG LLC, B-418490, B-418490.2, May 19, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 179, where we denied the protester’s challenge to the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), also of Reston, Virginia.  The Department of the Army issued the task order under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-19-R-0148, for cybersecurity, network operations, and maintenance of information technology support.  The protester requests that we reconsider our decision on the basis that it contained errors of fact and law.  Specifically, STG argues these errors resulted in a decision that wrongly concluded the agency did not perform an impermissible price realism analysis. We deny the request for reconsideration.  OVERVIEW It is well-established that in a competition for the award of a fixed-price contract, firms must be reasonably warned when the agency may evaluate whether a low-priced proposal is unrealistic, or reflects a failure to understand the contract requirements, based on its low price.  Our Office has sustained numerous protests where an agency concludes that an offeror’s proposed price is unrealistically low despite the solicitation lacking such a warning.  In these instances, we find that an agency has performed an impermissible price realism analysis.  At the same time, our Office has denied protests challenging an agency’s assessment of performance risk where, in the absence of a price realism evaluation factor, an agency considers cost or price risk that is associated with concerns with the protester’s technical proposal. This request for reconsideration challenges our conclusion in the underlying protest that, based on the totality of the record, the agency’s discussion of the protester’s proposed price reflected a continued elaboration of concerns about the protester’s technical proposal, and not a price realism analysis.  Thus, on reconsideration, we must decide whether this finding constitutes a material error of law or fact.  We conclude that the underlying decision does not contain an error warranting reversal because, while the record presents a close call, we do not view the agency’s conduct as rising to the level of an impermissible price realism analysis.  As discussed below, in our view, the agency’s consideration of STG’s proposed price during its best-value tradeoff analysis was sufficiently related to the stated evaluation criteria and concerns about STG’s proposed staffing levels as to support our finding that the agency’s conduct was unobjectionable.  BACKGROUND On February 18, STG filed a protest with our Office challenging the award to SAIC. Protest (B-418490).  STG argued in that protest that the agency conducted an improper price realism analysis in a fixed-price procurement where the solicitation did not advise potential offerors of a price realism review.  Put differently, STG argued that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria.  Id. at 13-14.  The protester also argued that it was prejudiced in the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision as a result of the price realism evaluation.  Id.