Infinity Systems Engineering, LLC (FA8810-19-R-0002)

B-419043 Nov 20, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Infinity Systems Engineering, LLC, a small business located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Net-centric Design Professionals, LLC, a small business located in Boulder, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8810-19-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support services for the Tools, Applications, and Processing (TAP) Laboratory and the Overhead Persistent Infrared Battlespace Awareness (OBAC) Center. Infinity argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable based on a mechanical application of an undisclosed staffing estimate. 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:  Infinity Systems Engineering, LLC File:  B-419043 Date:  November 20, 2020 Ryan J. Klein, Esq., Sherman & Howard LLC, for the protester. Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Erin L. Felix, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for Net-centric Design Professionals, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Wu, Major Matthew W. Ramage-White, and Daniel S. Vaillant, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency mechanically applied an undisclosed staffing estimate when evaluating proposals is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency considered the protester's proposed staffing plan and reasonably determined that it did not meet the requirements of the solicitation. DECISION   Infinity Systems Engineering, LLC, a small business located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Net-centric Design Professionals, LLC, a small business located in Boulder, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8810-19-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support services for the Tools, Applications, and Processing (TAP) Laboratory and the Overhead Persistent Infrared Battlespace Awareness (OBAC) Center.  Infinity argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable based on a mechanical application of an undisclosed staffing estimate.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP, as a small business set-aside, on October 23, 2019, for TAP Lab and OBAC support services.  The support services include systems engineering, administrative security, facilities maintenance, information/cyber defense, and configuration management services for the TAP Lab and OBAC.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR) Tab 7, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 12-13. The RFP contemplated the award of a single primarily cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, for two years, with three option years.[1]  AR, Tab 5, RFP, at 2-20.  Award was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  AR, Tab 9, RFP, section M, at 2, 4.  The technical factor consisted of four subfactors:  sample problem response, staffing plan, sustainment of 3rd party capabilities, and intellectual property rights.  Id. at 4. The technical factor was significantly more important than past performance, which was more important than cost/price.  Id.  When combined, all evaluation factors other than cost/price, were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.  Within the technical factor, the sample problem response was significantly more important than each of the other subfactors; the remaining subfactors were equal in weight.  Id.  All technical subfactors were evaluated for capability and risk.  Id. at 5.  An “unacceptable” technical rating for any subfactor rendered a proposal unawardable.  Id. at 6.  The solicitation defined the rating of unacceptable as “[p]roposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.”  Id.  Further, the solicitation defined a deficiency as a “material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.”  Id.