Tech7 Consulting, LLC (FA8819-24-R-B002)

B-423206,B-423206.2 Mar 10, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tech7 Consulting LLC, of Monument, Colorado, protests the award of contracts by the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, to offerors other than Tech7 pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8819-24-R-B002. The solicitation contemplated the award of "approximately ten" indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide advisory and assistance services for the Space Force. Agency Report (AR), Tab 44, RFP § M at 5. Tech7 challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process, including the agency's decision not to conduct discussions, and asserts that the agency was required to open discussions with Tech7 to permit Tech7's submission of additional cost/price information. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Tech7 Consulting, LLC File: B-423206; B-423206.2 Date: March 10, 2025 Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester . Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Nicole Williamson, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.; Stephan P. Ramaley, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., and Kathryn J. Carlson, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge PC, for Bryce Space and Technology, LLC; Isaias Alba IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Tracey L. Pruiett, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Christopher A. Jannace, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for OBX-MCR Alliance, LLC; and William M. Pannier, Esq., Pannier Law PC, for BTAS, Inc., the intervenors. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Christian H. Robertson II, Esq., and Joseph Wendleberger, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation advised offerors that the agency “may award without discussions,” protester’s assertion that the agency was required to open discussions to permit the protester’s submission of additional information is denied. DECISION Tech7 Consulting LLC, of Monument, Colorado, protests the award of contracts by the Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, to offerors other than Tech7 pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8819-24-R-B002. The solicitation contemplated the award of “approximately ten” indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide advisory and assistance services for the Space Force. Agency Report (AR), Tab 44, RFP § M at 5.[1] Tech7 challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process, including the agency’s decision not to conduct discussions, and asserts that the agency was required to open discussions with Tech7 to permit Tech7’s submission of additional cost/price information. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 12, 2024, the agency issued RFP No. FA8819-24-R-B002, seeking proposals to provide services “to develop, advance, and sustain weapon systems” for various organizations within the Space Force.[2] AR, Tab 30, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation established three evaluation factors--technical, small business participation, and cost/price--and provided that source selection decisions would be “based on a best value assessment of technical and price.”[3] AR, Tab 44, RFP § M at 5‑13. The solicitation directed offerors to submit their proposals in four volumes‑-(1) executive summary; (2) technical; (3) cost/price; and (4) contract responsibility/documentation--and provided instructions regarding the required content of each volume.[4] AR, Tab 43, RFP § L at 10-12. With regard to the cost/price volume, the solicitation required offerors to propose fully burdened labor rates for various labor categories; the rates will be used as ceiling rates in pricing subsequent task orders. In this context, the solicitation required offerors to submit detailed information to support their proposed rates--specifically including direct labor rates, overhead rates (including fringe benefits), general and administrative rates, and fee. Id. at 20‑22. The solicitation further provided that cost/price proposals would be evaluated with regard to reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced pricing, and stated that proposals “must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation [in those areas],” adding that “[c]ompliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in a determination of noncompliance.” Id.; see AR, Tab 44, RFP § M at 11-12. Prior to the solicitation closing date, offerors were encouraged to submit questions regarding the solicitation’s requirements. AR, Tab 43, RFP § L at 8.