Old Harbor Solutions, LLC (N00164-21-NR-55016)

B-420789 Aug 26, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Old Harbor Solutions, LLC, a small business of Manassas, Virginia, protests the terms of task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016422R3008, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) for business operations support services (BOSS). The protester contends that the solicitation does not provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Old Harbor Solutions, LLC File: B-420789 Date: August 26, 2022 Christopher J. Slottee, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., for the protester. Kathleen R. Robertson, Esq., and Allen E. Sebastian, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to provide adequate level of effort information for offerors to prepare proposals is denied where the solicitation establishes a mandatory number of labor hours and provides sufficient level of information for offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. DECISION Old Harbor Solutions, LLC, a small business of Manassas, Virginia, protests the terms of task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016422R3008, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) for business operations support services (BOSS). The protester contends that the solicitation does not provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to small business holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 3, RFP at 5, 16. The solicitation seeks proposals to perform various types of BOSS work that are delineated as separate contract line item numbers (CLIN).[1] Id. at 6-13. The solicited services will be provided to NSWC Crane’s “Corporate Operations Department, Comptroller Department.” Id. The solicitation contemplates issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 2, 138. The solicitation provides for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical and management approach (technical); (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Id. at 138-139. Technical is more important than past performance, and when combined, the two non-price factors are significantly more important than cost/ price. Id. at 139. Prior to the time set for receipt of proposals, Old Harbor filed this protest with our Office challenging the terms of the solicitation.[2] DISCUSSION The protester contends that the solicitation is ambiguous, does not provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis, and does not describe the needs of the agency sufficiently or accurately. Specifically, the protester reads the solicitation as requiring offerors to break down the mandatory number of total labor hours (1,203,700) across multiple labor categories and over 100 individual scopes of work without being provided level of effort estimates for each individual scope of work. Protest at 2. The protester contends that without being provided such level of effort information it is impossible for offerors to break down the mandatory number of labor hours “with any kind of accuracy.” Id. Further, the protester maintains that the agency’s refusal to provide level of effort information gives the incumbent contractor a competitive advantage over other prospective offerors because the incumbent has available information about the historical level of effort provided under each individual scope of work. Id. The agency responds that the protester is misreading the solicitation, which the agency maintains does not require the level of detail asserted by the protester. AR, Exh. 2, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5. The agency further contends that because the solicitation does not require the level of detail purported by the protester, the incumbent “does not have an unfair advantage by having access to historical data about the [level of effort] related to each task’s scope of work.” Id. at 5-6. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[3] As a general rule, a procuring agency must give sufficient detail in a solicitation to enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.