Jacobs Technology, Inc. (47QFCA23R0003)

B-421739.3,B-421739.4,B-421739.5 Jan 31, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jacobs Technology Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, for network operations and technical support services required by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found that the protester's proposal was unacceptable due to the unavailability of a proposed key person, improperly determined that Peraton was responsible, and unreasonably refused to conduct a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) investigation. We deny in part and dismiss in part 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: Jacobs Technology, Inc. File: B-421739.3; B-421739.4; B-421739.5 Date: January 31, 2024 Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Steven A. Neeley, Esq., George E. Stewart, III, Esq., and Peter A. Strickland, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Michael P. Ols, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for Peraton, Inc., the intervenor. Barbara Behn Ayala, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable due to the unavailability of a proposed key individual is denied where the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s terms, and the agency was not required to enter into discussions to permit a substitution. 2. Protest that the agency failed to consider relevant information in making an affirmative responsibility determination is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the agency knew or should have known about the information. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct a Procurement Integrity Act investigation is dismissed as factually and legally insufficient. DECISION Jacobs Technology Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, for network operations and technical support services required by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable due to the unavailability of a proposed key person, improperly determined that Peraton was responsible, and unreasonably refused to conduct a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) investigation.[1] We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the TOR pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to firms holding indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts under the GSA’s Alliant 2 Governmentwide Acquisition Contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The TOR, which the agency amended once, sought proposals for the provision to USSOCOM of global network operations and maintenance, cyber network defense, service desk, hardware and software engineering and infrastructure improvements, asset management and configuration, satellite communications, mobile device management, and cloud migration services to enhance and modernize platforms and networks to support special operations.[2] Id. The TOR contemplated issuance of a single, cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order, with a 1‑year base period of performance, four 1‑year option periods, and three 1‑year award term periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, TOR at 75, 122.[3] The TOR provided for a best‑value tradeoff using five non‑cost factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: technical approach; SITEC 3 EOM project scenario approach; management approach; key personnel and project staffing; and corporate experience. Id. at 155. Only the key personnel and project staffing factor is at issue here. The TOR specified five positions that were key, including, as relevant here, the quality assurance manager. Id. at 89.