IBSS Corporation (NMITS-OSPO-2023-TORFP)

B-422757,B-422757.3,B-422757.5 Oct 18, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IBSS Corporation, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of an order to Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., and Reston Consulting Group, Inc., of Englewood, Colorado, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. NMITS-OSPO-2023-TORFP, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for cybersecurity support services across various systems under the agency's Office of Satellite and Product Operations (OSPO). The protester raises a number of challenges to the agency's conduct of the procurement, including challenging the agency's evaluation of offerors' staffing plans and the agency's conduct of exchanges with the awardee, and alleging the awardee engaged in a "bait and switch" with respect to its key personnel. The protester also contends the agency unreasonably determined the awardee had sufficiently mitigated an alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving the awardee's subcontractors. We sustain the protest in part, dismiss it in part, and deny it in part. 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: IBSS Corporation File: B-422757; B-422757.3; B-422757.5 Date: October 18, 2024 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Chelsea A. Padgett, Esq., and Camille Chambers, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Zachary D. Prince, Esq., and Jonathan K. Keller, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., the intervenor. Jeremiah Kline, Esq., and Michael C. Ahl, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s staffing plan pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222-46 is sustained where the agency failed to meaningfully evaluate the awardee’s proposed compensation that was lower than the compensation from the predecessor contract, as required by the terms of the provision. 2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the protester’s staffing plan pursuant to FAR provision 52.222-46 is denied where the record demonstrates the agency reasonably assessed the protester’s proposal a rating of low confidence. 3. Protest alleging awardee engaged in a “bait and switch” of key personnel is dismissed where the protest does not sufficiently allege that the awardee knowingly or negligently represented that it intended to rely on personnel who would not be available to perform under the contract. 4. Protest alleging agency engaged in unequal discussions with the awardee and subsequently improperly evaluated the awardee’s revised pricing is denied where the agency’s conduct of exchanges and subsequent evaluation were consistent with the terms of the solicitation and otherwise reasonable. 5. Protest challenging agency’s acceptance of awardee’s revised organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan following exchanges is denied where the record demonstrates the agency reasonably determined the awardee’s proposal sufficiently addressed the agency’s concerns with respect to a potential conflict involving the awardee’s subcontractors. DECISION IBSS Corporation, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of an order to Blue Glacier Management Group, Inc., and Reston Consulting Group, Inc.,[1] of Englewood, Colorado, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. NMITS-OSPO-2023-TORFP, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for cybersecurity support services across various systems under the agency’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations (OSPO). The protester raises a number of challenges to the agency’s conduct of the procurement, including challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ staffing plans and the agency’s conduct of exchanges with the awardee, and alleging the awardee engaged in a “bait and switch” with respect to its key personnel.