Innovate Now, LLC (FA8622-21-R-8335)

B-419546 Apr 26, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Innovate Now, LLC, of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8622-21-R-8335, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering, professional and administrative support services at the Air Force Material Command headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Innovate argues that the RFP violates the requirements of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations pertaining to small-business mentor-protégé offerors, and also is otherwise unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Innovate Now, LLC File:  B-419546 Date:  April 26, 2021 John R. Prairie, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Michael J. Farr, Esq., Captain David J. Ely, and Edward S. Fisher, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Meagan K. Guerzon, Esq., for the Small Business Administration. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging solicitation requirement that protégé members of a mentor-protégé joint venture have the same level of experience as other offerors is sustained; the requirement violates an express prohibition contained in a Small Business Administration regulation. 2.  Protest alleging that solicitation is ambiguous because it requires offerors to demonstrate the staffing used on a prior contract at “a single point in time” is sustained because the solicitation does not define the “single point in time” requirement, and offerors will be unable to compete on a common basis. DECISION Innovate Now, LLC, of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8622-21-R-8335, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering, professional and administrative support services at the Air Force Material Command headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  Innovate argues that the RFP violates the requirements of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations pertaining to small-business mentor-protégé offerors, and also is otherwise unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplates the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee type task order for a base year and four 1-year options using a unique source selection method that the Air Force calls “the highest two technically capable offerors with realistic, balanced and reasonable pricing source selection methodology.”[1]  Agency Report (AR) exh. 28, RFP Evaluation Criteria, amend. No. 0001, at 2.  Innovate’s protest concerns three requirements contained in the RFP’s evaluation criteria.  We discuss each of Innovate’s allegations in detail below. DISCUSSION Requirements for Protégé Members of Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures Innovate argues first that the RFP improperly requires the protégé member of any mentor-protégé joint venture offeror to meet the same experience requirements as all other offerors, in violation of SBA regulations.[2]  The RFP specifies that, for joint venture offerors, a minimum of at least one work sample must be submitted for each member of the joint venture that meets the following requirements:  (1) the work sample must have been a contract (or task order) performed for the federal government; (2) the work sample must have been performed by the entity as a prime contractor; (3) the work sample must have been performed on a non-fixed price basis; (4) the work sample must have been performed for at least six months within the last five years; and (5) the most recent past performance or contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) report for the work sample must reflect a satisfactory or above rating in the categories of quality, schedule, cost control, and management.  AR, exh. 28, RFP Evaluation Criteria, amend. No. 0001, at 4-6.  Innovate argues that, because the protégé member of any joint venture is required to meet the same requirements applicable to all other offerors, this RFP requirement violates SBA’s regulations. The agency responds that the RFP does not violate the requirements of SBA’s regulations because joint venture offerors are not restricted to submitting work samples performed only by the joint venture entity, and are instead permitted to submit work samples performed by each member of the joint venture.  The agency also argues that the RFP reflects its minimum requirements and therefore is reasonable, notwithstanding that a protégé member of a joint venture may not be able to meet those requirements.  Finally, the agency notes that the RFP contemplates evaluation of the joint venture work samples in the aggregate.