Sumaria Systems, LLC (FA8721-23-F-0005)

B-422527.3,B-422527.4 Oct 23, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sumaria Systems, LLC, of Fairborn, Ohio, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Applied Research Solutions, Inc., of Beavercreek, Ohio, also a small business, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 73, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for engineering, professional, administrative, and support services for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Sumaria argues that the Air Force misevaluated the firm's task order proposal, engaged in unequal treatment in the evaluation, and consequently made an improper source selection decision. 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: Sumaria Systems, LLC File: B-422527.3; B-422527.4 Date: October 23, 2024 James Y. Boland, Esq., Caleb E. McCallum, Esq., and Kelly M. Boppe, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Christian N. Curran, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., and Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Applied Research Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia Wiegman Lenz, and Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Todd C. Culliton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s task order proposal is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that agency conducted an unequal technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the differences in the evaluation were reasonably based on differences in the offerors’ proposals. 3. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s proposal by considering document that the solicitation provided would not be credited is denied where the record shows that although the agency cited the document in support of the evaluation, the error was not prejudicial because the information in the document was duplicative of other information that was properly considered. DECISION Sumaria Systems, LLC, of Fairborn, Ohio, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Applied Research Solutions, Inc., of Beavercreek, Ohio, also a small business, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. 73, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for engineering, professional, administrative, and support services for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Sumaria argues that the Air Force misevaluated the firm’s task order proposal, engaged in unequal treatment in the evaluation, and consequently made an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the FOPR on October 17, 2023, seeking task order proposals from offerors that hold the General Services Administration’s (GSA) one acquisition solution for integrated services small business (OASIS-SB) pool 6 multiple-award task order contracts. The procurement was conducted under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505(b).[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The FOPR provided that a single cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort task order would be issued to the firm whose task order proposal was evaluated as the highest technically rated offer with a reasonable and realistic price. The FOPR identified two factors the agency would use to evaluate proposals: technical and cost/price. AR, Tab 7f, FOPR Evaluation Criteria at 3. Much of the technical evaluation related to the attributes of five previous contracts or subcontracts (referred to as work samples one through five) performed by the offeror or a member of its team. Of the five work samples, no more than two could be for work performed by a team member, such as a subcontractor.[2] Id. at 4. Offerors were to provide specific information in relation to these work samples that would be used to determine evaluation scores, based on aspects of each offeror’s experience and quality of performance. Accordingly, the FOPR organized 17 technical subfactors under four headings: non-functional, functional, certifications and accreditations, and [contractor performance assessment rating system (CPARS)] ratings. Id.