CBF Partners JV, LLC (50310221R0008)

B-419846.2,B-419846.3,B-419846.4 Dec 14, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CBF Partners JV, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to C2 Alaska, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 50310221R008, issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for professional contractor support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. 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:  CBF Partners JV, LLC File:  B-419846.2; B-419846.3; B-419846.4 Date:  December 14, 2021 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Stowell Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb, LLP, and William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for C2 Alaska, LLC, the intervenor. Jeffrey C. Walker, Esq., Peter Vangsnes, Esq., and John P. Sholar, Esq., Securities and Exchange Commission, for the agency. Michael Price, Esq., Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the technical acceptability of the awardee’s response to a minimum experience factor is denied where the awardee’s submission contained all required information and complied with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest grounds challenging the technical acceptability of the awardee’s subcontracting plan and letters of commitment are denied where the subcontracting plan and letters of commitment complied with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation is denied where the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. 4.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation, and where the protester is unable to demonstrate competitive prejudice with respect to the remaining protest grounds. DECISION CBF Partners JV, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to C2 Alaska, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 50310221R008, issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for professional contractor support services.  The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on April 16, 2021, as an 8(a) set‑aside,[1] under the competitive procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  RFP at 66, 73; COS/MOL at 36.[2]  The agency sought proposals for professional acquisition support services such as program analysis and data governance, administration, communication, litigation, investigations, inspections, examinations, case‑related administration, auditing and accounting, forensics, statistical analysis, business and policy management support, and other special projects.  RFP at 9. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract with one 5‑year base period and one 5‑year option period.  Id. at 4.  Under the established IDIQ, the agency expects to issue time‑and‑materials, labor‑hours, or fixed‑price orders.  Id. at 5.  The maximum value of the IDIQ contract is $2.5 billion.  Id. at 4. This procurement‑‑called iPASS 2.0‑‑was conducted in two stages.[3]  COS/MOL at 37.  In the first stage, offerors were required to demonstrate a certain level of minimum experience.  Id.  This stage of the procurement was governed by a special notice published to the government‑wide point of entry (GPE) along with the RFP.  See id. at 36‑37.The minimum experience requirement could be satisfied by the offeror or by a subsidiary or affiliate of the offeror, so long as the subsidiary or affiliate was wholly owned by the same parent company as the offeror.  Agency Resp. to Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Special Notice at 2.  Responses to the minimum experience requirement, due by June 1, were evaluated on a go/no‑go basis.  Id. at 1‑2.  Only offerors rated as “go” would advance to the second and final stage of the competition, which required offerors to submit more comprehensive proposals.  Id. at 2; see also COS/MOL at 38. Second stage proposals were to be submitted in four volumes, and were due by June 18.  RFP at 3, 65‑66.  The first volume was to include the technical proposal for the IDIQ contract.  Id.