SOS International, LLC (W50NH9-23-R-C3TO)

B-422410 May 28, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SOS International, LLC (SOSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-23-R-C3TO, issued by the Department of the Army, for intelligence operations support services. The protester contends the agency unreasonably eliminated SOSI from the competition because the Army was unable to access and view a portion of the offeror's submitted proposal. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SOS International, LLC File: B-422410 Date: May 28, 2024 Dawn E. Stern, Esq., David R. Lacker, Esq., and Andrew W. Curent, Esq., DLA Piper LLP (US), for the protester. Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin W. Hogan, Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s elimination of the protester’s proposal from the competition is denied where the agency’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION SOS International, LLC (SOSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-23-R-C3TO, issued by the Department of the Army, for intelligence operations support services. The protester contends the agency unreasonably eliminated SOSI from the competition because the Army was unable to access and view a portion of the offeror’s submitted proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RTOP on December 20, 2023, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, to firms holding contracts under the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Solutions for Intelligence Analysis 3 multiple‑award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contact. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5a, RTOP Amendment 1 at 1[1]; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order, on cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1-year option periods, for intelligence operations support services to U.S. Central Command. RTOP at 1, 7. The solicitation advised that award would be made on best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) staffing plan; (2) Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) deployment approach; and (3) cost/price. RTOP at 42. As relevant to this protest, an offeror’s cost/price proposal was required to include a government format pricing model (GFPM) workbook, which included direct labor categories and rates. Id. at 41. As it related to proposed subcontractors, the RTOP explained: If Subcontractor labor is proposed, the Prime Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the Subcontractor provides a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component and each indirect rate applied to it along with profit or fee regardless of contract type. The labor rate build shall be provided by all Subcontractors within the GFPM-Subs to include all formulas that demonstrate how the burdened rate is computed. Id. at 46. Subcontractors were permitted to submit their unburdened direct hourly labor rates (what the RTOP calls “un-sanitized” rates) directly to the Army, via the Department of Defense Secure Access File Exchange (DOD SAFE). Id. A SOSI subcontractor, which we will refer to herein as Subcontractor X, submitted its GFPM cost/price spreadsheet to the Army via DOD Safe prior to the RTOP’s established deadline. Protest, exh. 6, Subcontractor X DOD Safe Confirmation at 1. Consistent with the RTOP, the Army undertook a proposal compliance review after the January 25, 2024, proposal submission deadline. COS at 3. In this regard, the RTOP provided that: “[a]fter receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the RTOP instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed [in the RTOP for the rejection of proposals].” RTOP at 54. During this review, the agency attempted to open Subcontractor X’s GFPM pricing spreadsheet but could not access the file. See AR, Tab 11, Dialog Box at 1 (providing agency personnel were unable to open the document because they did not have the required access permissions).