AB International Services, LLC (FA2263-20-R-0002)

B-419727 Jul 13, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Bionetics Corporation, of Yorktown, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to AB International Services, LLC (ABIS), of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2263-20-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for metrology and technical writing services in support of the Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) program. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee's proposed compensation plans in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222-46 and the solicitation. We sustain 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:  The Bionetics Corporation File:  B-419727 Date:  July 13, 2021 Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., and Daniel A.D. Salmon, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for the protester. John O’Brien, Esq., Daniel Strouse, Esq., and David Cohen, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for AB International Services, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S Wiegman-Lenz, Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Nicholas T. Iliff, Esq., and Thomas M. Powers, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s failure to evaluate the awardee’s professional compensation plan for realism in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46 is dismissed as untimely where the solicitation advised that the agency would not conduct a realism analysis of any kind and the protester did not challenge the terms of the solicitation until after the receipt of initial proposals. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s failure to compare the awardee’s proposed professional compensation to the incumbent contractor’s employee compensation is sustained where the record does not demonstrate that the agency conducted an evaluation in accordance with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46 despite the offerors having submitted professional compensation plans. DECISION The Bionetics Corporation, of Yorktown, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to AB International Services, LLC (ABIS), of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2263-20-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for metrology and technical writing services in support of the Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL)[1] program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee’s proposed compensation plans in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222-46 and the solicitation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On February 26, 2020, the Air Force issued the solicitation in accordance with the procedures under FAR part 15, seeking proposals to provide metrology and technical writing services, including the operation of the Air Force Primary Standards Laboratory (AFPSL) at the Central Ohio Aerospace and Technology Center in Heath, Ohio.[2]  AR, Tab 3, RFP at 1; PWS at 2; COS at 3.  The solicitation contemplated the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a contract with fixed-price, fixed-price with incentive, and cost-reimbursement contract line items, for a 3-month base period and ten 1-year option periods.  COS at 3; RFP at 3-46.  The deadline for submission of proposals was March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation advised offerors that the agency would evaluate proposals considering price and two non-price factors, technical, and past performance.  AR, Tab 21, RFP, Section M attach. at 3.  The technical factor included five subfactors:  staffing approach; recruitment, training, and retention; quality plan; calibration technical orders quality plan; and measurement area assurance.  Id.  The agency would evaluate the proposed approach under each of the technical subfactors and assign each an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 3-4.  The agency would also evaluate the technical risk under each subfactor and assign an adjectival rating of low, moderate, high, or unacceptable.  Id. at 4.  Each offeror’s past performance would be evaluated to ascertain the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and would be assigned an adjectival rating of substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, or unknown confidence.  Id.