CSlope Solutions, LLC (W519TC-23-R-0111)

B-422249 Mar 14, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JCS Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0111, issued by the Department of the Army, for program management support for the Arlington National Cemetery customer care support center. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 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: JCS Solutions, LLC File: B-422249 Date: March 13, 2024 Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., and Daniel Strouse, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Alex M. Cahill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging the terms of the solicitation improperly provide for a lowest-price, technically acceptable source selection process is denied where the solicitation provides for a comparative assessment of past performance. DECISION JCS Solutions, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0111, issued by the Department of the Army, for program management support for the Arlington National Cemetery customer care support center. The protester contends that the solicitation improperly provides for a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2023, the Army issued the solicitation under the General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) 8(a) Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resource for Services III governmentwide acquisition contract.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) and Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2‑3. The solicitation, which was issued in accordance with FAR section 16.505, contemplates the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period (including a 30-day transition period) and four, 1-year option periods.[2] Id. at 3. The due date for proposals was December 13, 2023. Id. at 9 The solicitation provides for the evaluation of proposals in three steps. AR, Tab 17, RFP amend. 0003. at 14. Under step one, the agency will conduct a technical evaluation of the five lowest-priced proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. From this pool of proposals, the agency will select the three lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals to proceed to step two. Id. Under step two, the agency will evaluate the recency and relevancy of an offeror’s submitted past performance references and then assign the proposal an overall confidence rating of no confidence, limited confidence, neutral confidence, satisfactory confidence, or substantial confidence.[3] Id. The agency will also conduct a price reasonableness analysis under this step. Id. at 16. Only the proposals with a fair and reasonable price and a past performance rating of “substantial confidence” will be permitted to move on to step three.[4] Under step three, the agency will issue the task order to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal that receives a rating of substantial confidence in past performance. Id. On December 12, prior to the due date for proposals, JCS filed a protest with our Office challenging the terms of the solicitation. Protest at 1. In its protest, JCS alleged (1) the terms of the solicitation were contradictory regarding the source selection process in that the RFP provided for the issuance of the task order on both a best‑value tradeoff basis and an LPTA basis, (2) the solicitation improperly provided for an LPTA source selection process in violation of the FAR and DFARS, and (3) the solicitation failed to request professional compensation plans from offerors. See id. at 10‑21. On January 11, 2024, the agency requested dismissal of the protest on the basis that it intended to take corrective action. AR, Tab 27, Notice of Corrective Action at 2. Specifically, the agency explained that it would amend sections M and L of the solicitation to delete any reference to a best-value tradeoff source selection process. Id. at 1‑2.