Amaze Technologies, LLC (FA8622-20-R-8237)

B-419141,B-419141.2,B-419141.3 Dec 22, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Amaze Technologies, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Apogee Engineering, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado by the Department of the Air Force under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 59 for advisory and assistance support services for the Air Force life cycle management center. Amaze argues that the agency ignored information in Amaze's proposal and departed from the stated evaluation criteria when it deducted points from Amaze's proposed score. 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:  Amaze Technologies, LLC File:  B-419141; B-419141.2; B-419141.3 Date:  December 22, 2020 Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. William M. Jack, Esq., Amba M. Datta, Esq., and Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, for Apogee Engineering, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Major Matthew W. Ramage-White, and Captain David J. Ely, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably deducted points from protester’s proposed score is denied where record supports the agency’s finding that the protester failed to substantiate a number of points that it claimed in its proposed score. DECISION   Amaze Technologies, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Apogee Engineering, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado by the Department of the Air Force under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 59 for advisory and assistance support services for the Air Force life cycle management center.  Amaze argues that the agency ignored information in Amaze’s proposal and departed from the stated evaluation criteria when it deducted points from Amaze’s proposed score. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The FOPR was issued to holders of the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) small business multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 19, FOPR Eval. Criteria at 3.[1]  The FOPR sought advisory and assistance services, including professional acquisition, engineering, scientific, research, financial, and administrative capabilities to support program management of aircraft research, development, production, and lifecycle acquisition and sustainment activities.  AR, Tab 5, FOPR Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 11. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order with an 11-month base period and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 3, FOPR Cover Letter at 1.  Award would be made to the highest technically rated offeror with a realistic and reasonable price, based on the evaluation of a technical factor and a cost/price factor.  AR, Tab 19, FOPR Eval. Criteria at 1.  Under the technical factor, offerors had to assign a score to their proposals for a number of different subfactors identified in the solicitation.[2]  Id. at 2, 6-13. The technical volume of each offeror’s proposal had to contain sufficient data to substantiate all of the points the offeror assigned to itself.  AR, Tab 19, FOPR Eval. Criteria at 13.  Offerors could select up to five work samples to submit as substantiating evidence.  AR, Tab 7, FOPR Instructions to Offerors at 1.  For each work sample, offerors also had to provide a government point of contact.  Id.  The FOPR stated that the agency reserved the right to contact the government point of contact, “for any or all criteria during validation of self-scores.”  Id. at 2.  The FOPR informed offerors that the “burden of proof for substantiating points . . . rests solely with the [o]fferor.”[3]  AR, Tab 19, FOPR Eval. Criteria at 15.  The FOPR explained that if the government could not validate an offeror’s proposed score on any of the subfactors based on the substantiating evidence provided, the agency “reserves the right to downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points awarded.”  AR, Tab 7, FOPR Instructions to Offerors at 2. With respect to evaluation of proposals, the FOPR explained that the agency would rank the proposals based on the offeror’s proposed scores, and then begin to validate the highest-scored proposal.  AR, Tab 19, FOPR Eval.