ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, LLC (W912DY-19-R-0001)

B-419519.4 Sep 19, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Bowhead Total Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a small business of Springfield, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DY-19-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for integrated technical services in support of the agency's High Performance Computing Modernization Program. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance and argues that the agency's award decision erroneously relied on the awardee's key personnel who became unavailable prior to award. 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: ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, LLC File: B-419519.4 Date: September 19, 2022 Amy L. O’Sullivan, Esq., Zachary Schroeder, Esq., and William B. O’Reilly, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., and Sean R. Belanger, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for Bowhead Total Enterprise Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Karl W. Kuhn, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee failed to notify the agency that proposed key personnel were unavailable is denied where the record contains no evidence that the awardee had actual knowledge of the alleged unavailability. 2. Errors in an agency’s past performance evaluation do not provide a basis to sustain a protest where the errors did not affect the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision and therefore did not competitively prejudice the protester. DECISION ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Bowhead Total Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a small business of Springfield, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DY-19-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for integrated technical services in support of the agency’s High Performance Computing Modernization Program. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and argues that the agency’s award decision erroneously relied on the awardee’s key personnel who became unavailable prior to award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside on December 28, 2018, seeking technical and professional support services for the operation of the agency’s High Performance Computing Modernization Program Office. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1a, RFP at 1, 4.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, on a best-value tradeoff basis, with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line items for a 5-year ordering period. Id. at 4, 99. The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated based on the following three factors: (1) technical capability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Id. at 99. The RFP provided that technical capability was the most important factor and past performance was “slightly less important” than technical capability. Id. For purposes of award, the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. As relevant here, under the technical capability factor, offerors were instructed to identify and discuss the qualifications of two key personnel described in section 2.7 of the performance work statement (PWS): overall program manager and alternate program manager. Id. at 15‑16, 88. The PWS also provided that additional key personnel may be identified at the task order level. Id. at 16. In this regard, the solicitation included two “seed” or sample task orders that reflected requirements the agency anticipated under the contract and required offerors to provide, for evaluation purposes, their proposed technical approach and cost/price for performing the requirements of those task orders. Id. at 88-89, 91. The task order PWS for each of the two seed task orders identified an additional key personnel position: a task order technical manager for seed task order 1; and a project manager/technical advisor for seed task order 2. AR, Tab 1b, RFP attach. J-1, Seed Task Order 1 PWS at 3; Tab 1c, RFP attach.