Peraton Inc. (47QFCA23R0029)

B-421839,B-421839.2 Nov 03, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0029, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for technical support services for the United States Special Operations Command. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated it from the competition. 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: Peraton Inc. File: B‑421839; B‑421839.2 Date: November 3, 2023 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the protester. Kelli Cochran‑Seabrook, Esq., and Nathan Bangsil, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall‑McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision to exclude proposal from the competition based on considerations not contemplated by the solicitation’s requirements is denied where the protester cannot show competitive prejudice from the agency’s improper elimination of its proposal. DECISION Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0029, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for technical support services for the United States Special Operations Command. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated it from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation on May 11, 2023, to firms holding contracts under GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity governmentwide acquisition contract unrestricted pool 1. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1‑2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, TOR amend. 2 at 1‑2.[1] The TOR contemplated the issuance of a cost‑plus‑award‑fee task order, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods. AR, Tab 4, TOR amend. 2 at 2, 28. The solicitation sought specialized services enabling the Department of Defense to conduct persistent, networked, and distributed global information operations. Id. at 10‑11. Specifically, the task order, which comprised five separate task areas, sought subject matter experts to deliver culturally relevant internet‑based activities for synchronizing, planning, and integrating online military information support operations and assessing the effectiveness of the campaigns.[2] Id. Offerors were required to submit their proposals in three parts. TOR amend. 2 at 85. First, each offeror was to submit a written cost/price proposal, including attachment Q, a cost/price Microsoft Excel workbook. Id. at 86, 89. Attachment Q was to provide back‑up documentation for the labor contract line item numbers (CLINs) for each period of performance and for each task area, as well as other direct and indirect rate information. Id. at 89-90. For part two, each offeror was required to provide its technical proposal, including attachment P, (a project staffing plan template), containing all proposed individuals or labor categories for this effort. Id. at 91‑92. In attachment P, offerors were to identify key personnel and proposed labor categories for non-key personnel, and specify qualifications for each labor category and the hours proposed for each task area and period of performance. Id. at 91. Finally, offerors were to provide an oral technical proposal presentation covering the offeror’s technical approach, management approach, and a technical capability scenario. Id. at 97. The solicitation advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering cost and other factors. Id. at 99. In addition to cost, the TOR included the following technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: technical approach; management approach; key personnel and project staffing; and corporate experience. Id. at 101. The technical factors combined are significantly more important than cost. Id. The agency would combine the results of the written technical proposal and the oral presentation for the overall technical evaluation rating. Id. Moreover, the TOR advised offerors that the procedures of FAR part 15.3 did not apply and that the agency intended to issue the task order based on initial proposals, without discussions, unless the agency determined discussions necessary. Id.