FedTec, LLC (FA2517-23-R-0005)

B-422138.2,B-422138.3 Jul 09, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FedTec, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to CompQsoft, Inc., of Houston, Texas, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA2517-23-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, to provide information technology support services at Peterson Space Force Base (PSFB) and Schreiver Space Force Base (SSFB) in Colorado. FedTec protests CompQsoft's alleged failure to comply with the agency's instructions regarding offerors' submission of proposal revisions. 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: FedTec, LLC File: B-422138.2; B-422138.3 Date: July 9, 2024 W. Brad English, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Bret C. Marfut, Esq., and Sarah E. Barney, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for CompQsoft, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia Wiegman-Lenz, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., and Katie Illingworth, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where agency's interchange notices permitted proposal revisions “pertaining to” identified staffing weaknesses, and the awardee's staffing approach included cross-utilization of personnel, the agency reasonably permitted broad revisions to awardee's proposed staffing plan. DECISION FedTec, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to CompQsoft, Inc., of Houston, Texas, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA2517-23-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, to provide information technology support services at Peterson Space Force Base (PSFB) and Schreiver Space Force Base (SSFB) in Colorado. FedTec protests CompQsoft's alleged failure to comply with the agency's instructions regarding offerors' submission of proposal revisions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 30, 2023, pursuant to subpart 16.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the agency issued the solicitation to small business contractors holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the Defense Information Systems Agency's Encore III program. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Initial FOPR at 1.[1] As amended, the solicitation sought proposals to provide a workforce capable of performing “all services required to support the operation, maintenance and logistics of the PSFB and SSFB Installation Base Operating Support Information Technology (BOSIT) systems.” AR, Tab 15, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. The PWS was comprised of multiple “chapters” that described the various performance requirements, and each offeror was required to identify the Encore III labor categories and number of full-time employees (FTEs) necessary to perform those requirements. AR, Tab 14, FOPR at 4; see AR, Tab 16, FOPR attach. 2, staffing plan. In the context of proposed staffing, the solicitation also directed offerors to address “crossutilization [of personnel] between positions.” AR, Tab 14, FOPR at 4. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a hybrid cost-reimbursable and cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a 90-day phase-in period, a 1-year base period, and two 1-year option periods, and provided for award on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between two evaluation factors: technical and cost/price. Id. at 7-10. Under the technical evaluation factor, the solicitation established two subfactors: (1) staffing plan and (2) core services action plan. With regard to the first subfactor, staffing plan, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate each offeror's proposed staffing to determine whether it presented “sufficient rationale and justification for the number of employees proposed along with any cross-utilization anticipated,” and thereafter assign a subfactor rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 7-8. With regard to the second subfactor, core services action plan, the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.[2] Id. at 8-9. Finally, with regard to cost/price, the solicitation required offerors to use the solicitation's cost/price template to present their proposed labor rates by labor category, annual hours, contract line item number (CLIN),[3] and performance period. Id. at 5-6; see AR, Tab 12, FOPR attach. 3, cost/price template.