Inflowlogistics, LLC (47QFWA22Q0021)

B-421459,B-421459.2 May 22, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Inflowlogistics, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to ASIRTek Federal Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFWA22Q0021 for services and contractor positions in support of the United States Air Force 67 Cyberspace Operations Group (COG). Inflowlogistics argues that the agency used unstated evaluation criteria in assigning a weakness to its proposal, unreasonably evaluated ASIRTek's proposal by not assigning the proposal a weakness for failing to identify employees with proper certifications, treated the two proposals disparately, and made a flawed best-value determination. 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: Inflowlogistics, LLC File: B-421459; B-421459.2 Date: May 22, 2023 Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Eleanor M. Ross, Esq., and Jordan N. Malone, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for ASIRTek Federal Services, LLC, the intervenor. Amy A. Cook, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., April Y. Shields, 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 technical evaluation is denied where the weakness the agency identified in the protester’s proposal reflects the protester’s failure to sufficiently address the solicitation’s requirements. 2. Protest that the agency failed to assess a weakness in the awardee’s proposal for failing to demonstrate compliance with certification requirements is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where the certification requirements at issue are a matter of contract administration. 3. Protest alleging that the agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the differences in assessed strengths were based on differences in the proposals. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s source selection rationale was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Inflowlogistics, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to ASIRTek Federal Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QFWA22Q0021 for services and contractor positions in support of the United States Air Force 67 Cyberspace Operations Group (COG). Inflowlogistics argues that the agency used unstated evaluation criteria in assigning a weakness to its proposal, unreasonably evaluated ASIRTek’s proposal by not assigning the proposal a weakness for failing to identify employees with proper certifications, treated the two proposals disparately, and made a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on September 8, 2022, to small businesses holding indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) program.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1. The RFP sought a variety of services, including technical and management services, to analyze, assess, and recommend cyber program requirements, as well as conduct research and analysis to develop strategic planning materials, requirements, and resource requirements to ensure alignment and synchronization of COG[2] mission areas and priorities with national requirements. RFP at 4. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1‑year base period, four 1-year option periods, and a potential 6-month extension. RFP at 1, 4, 52. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following three factors: technical management approach, previous experience, and price. RFP at 53. The RFP advised that the non-price factors, which the agency would evaluate first, would be “equally weighted, and when combined, are significantly more important than price,” but that price might become more important as the “difference in non-price factors becomes closer.” Id. With regard to the technical factor, the solicitation advised that proposals would be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the solicitation requirements and its approach to meeting those requirements. RFP at 54.