OBXtek, Inc. (FA521523R0002)

B-422057,B-422057.2 Jan 02, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights OBXtek, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA521523R0002 by the Department of the Air Force for pilot instruction and related services at several domestic and overseas locations. The protester principally alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of the protester's professional employee compensation plan. 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: OBXtek, Inc. File: B-422057; B-422057.2 Date: January 2, 2024 Lewis Rhodes, Esq., and Orest Jowyk, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R Quigley, Esq., Owen E. Salyers, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, for Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc., the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Alissa J. Schrider, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s professional employee compensation plan is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with regulation and the terms of the solicitation. DECISION OBXtek, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Valiant Global Defense Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA521523R0002 by the Department of the Air Force for pilot instruction and related services at several domestic and overseas locations. The protester principally alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of the protester’s professional employee compensation plan. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 2, 2023, the agency issued the FOPR to all concerns eligible under pool 1 of the General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) contract. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The solicitation sought pilot instruction and academic support services at six installations: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska; Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii; Kadena and Misawa Air Bases, Japan; and Kunsan and Osan Air Bases, Republic of Korea. Id. The solicitation anticipated the award of a single fixed-price task order with a 12-month base period, four 1-year option periods, and a one-year incentive option period. Id. The FOPR further explained that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between technical and price, which were of equal importance. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, FOPR attach. 7, Evaluation Criteria at 1. The technical factor was composed of three subfactors: (1) staffing plan; (2) hiring and retention plan; and (3) corporate experience. Id. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation informed offerors that the agency would evaluate proposed compensation plans in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222‑46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Id. at 7. The solicitation specifically instructed offerors to submit their compensation plans in two parts: a compensation plan narrative and a compensation plan rate template identifying hourly salaries and fringe rates. AR, Tab 9, FOPR attach. 6, Instructions to Offerors at 9. The FOPR warned offerors that “[f]ailure to demonstrate a realistic [p]rofessional [c]ompensation [p]lan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or proposed unrealistically low professional compensation.” AR, Tab 11, FOPR attach. 7, Evaluation Criteria at 7. The agency received six proposals, including from OBXtek and Valiant. MOL at 3. As part of its evaluation of proposals, the agency assessed both OBXtek’s and Valiant’s compensation plans and initially concluded that OBXtek’s proposed compensation was either low or significantly low when compared to the incumbent compensation at each location. Id. at 4. The agency issued an interchange notice to OBXtek offering it the opportunity to demonstrate how its proposed compensation plan would allow OBXtek to maintain “program continuity[,] uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of competent professional service employees.” AR, Tab 31, OBXtek Interchange Notice at 3. In response OBXtek submitted a revised compensation plan narrative and revised compensation rates.