A. Prentice Ray & Associates, LLC (GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8a)

B-419024.5,B-419024.6 Dec 22, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A. Prentice Ray & Associates, LLC (APRA), an 8(a) small business of Washington, D.C., protests the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) not to make an award to APRA under solicitation No. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a) for its One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) small business multiple award contract solution. The protester contends that the agency failed to implement the corrective action promised in response to APRA's prior protest. In addition, as in its earlier protests, APRA contends that the agency's improper scoring of its proposal under three financial capability factors was tantamount to a nonresponsibility determination that required GSA to refer APRA to SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) review. 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:  A. Prentice Ray & Associates, LLC File:  B-419024.5; B-419024.6 Date:  December 22, 2021 Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Lauren R. Brier, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Stephen T. O’Neal, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly failed to refer protester to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency review is denied where the contracting officer did not make a nonresponsibility determination, but rather concluded that the protester’s proposal was not among the highest technically rated proposals in line for award. DECISION A. Prentice Ray & Associates, LLC (APRA), an 8(a) small business of Washington, D.C., protests the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) not to make an award to APRA under solicitation No. GS00Q-13-DR-0002-8(a) for its One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) small business multiple award contract solution.[1]  The protester contends that the agency failed to implement the corrective action promised in response to APRA’s prior protest.  In addition, as in its earlier protests, APRA contends that the agency’s improper scoring of its proposal under three financial capability factors was tantamount to a nonresponsibility determination that required GSA to refer APRA to SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) review. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND OASIS small business contracts consist of seven separate pools of governmentwide multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity task order contracts that span 29 North American Industry Classification System codes under economic subsector 541, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  OASIS small business contracts, first awarded in 2014, permit GSA to conduct an open season competition (also referred to as on-ramping or subpool creation) to establish the ability for agencies to conduct 8(a) set aside competitions within the established pools.  Id.  In the procurement at issue in this protest, GSA sought to competitively award multiple subpool contracts to 8(a) businesses under six of the seven pools.[2]  Id. at 1-2.  This protest relates solely to the agency’s award decision under subpool 2, where the solicitation stated the agency intended to award eight 8(a) subpool 2 contracts.[3]  Id. at 2; Solicitation at 122. On April 29, 2019, the solicitation was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website (now beta.SAM.gov).  COS at 2.  The solicitation stated that award would be made to the highest technically rated offerors with a fair and reasonable price.  Solicitation at 122.  The solicitation provided detailed proposal preparation instructions that required submission of the following six proposal volumes:  (1) general; (2) responsibility; (3) relevant experience; (4) past performance; (5) systems, certifications, and clearances; and (6) price.  Id. at 83-121.  The solicitation established a self-scoring system whereby offerors could claim a maximum of 10,000 points under the three evaluation criteria as follows:  relevant experience (4,000 points), past performance (4,000 points), and systems, certifications, and clearances (2,000 points).  Id. at 134-135.  The solicitation stated that proposals would be subject to an initial screening to ensure that proposals conformed to the submission instructions and met all minimum requirements, and any proposal failing to satisfy the minimum requirements would be removed from consideration.  Id.