SysCom Inc. (FA481924R0009)

B-423334 May 19, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SysCom, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA481924R0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support services for multiple Air Force bases. SysCom asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: SysCom Inc. File: B-423334 Date: May 19, 2025 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., David O’Neill, Esq., and Dana Molinari, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Kelsi Pilcher, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal as unacceptable is denied where protester failed to provide information required by the solicitation. DECISION SysCom, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA481924R0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for support services for multiple Air Force bases. SysCom asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the solicitation on September 20, 2024, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 as a competitive 8(a) set-aside.[1] The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for support services for multiple Air Force locations for a base year, four 1-year option periods, and one 6-month extension period. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following three evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 66. The technical evaluation factor consisted of four subfactors: staffing plan; security clearances; mission essential services plan; and quality control plan. Each subfactor included multiple elements that offerors were required to address. The staffing plan subfactor was composed of four elements, including, as relevant here: (d) a description of how the offeror intends to maintain uninterrupted service during the absence of personnel due to sickness, vacations, or other sustained leave to ensure no degradation to continued services. AR, Tab 23, RFP, amend. 2, Evaluation Factors at 4. The RFP explained the evaluation and award selection process as follows. First, the agency would perform a compliance check to ensure that the proposal complied with all solicitation instructions. Id. at 8. Second, the agency would rank all compliant proposals in order of price. Id. Third, starting with the lowest-priced proposal, the agency would evaluate the technical proposals under the technical factor on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, until two or more quotations were found to be technically acceptable. Id. A proposal that was evaluated as unacceptable under any element of a subfactor was rated as unacceptable for that subfactor. A proposal that was rated unacceptable under any technical subfactor was rated unacceptable under the technical factor. Id. Fourth, the agency would evaluate the technically acceptable proposals under the past performance factor until at least one proposal was rated substantial confidence for past performance or until all technically acceptable proposals were evaluated for past performance. [2] Id. Finally, once the government evaluated a proposal as technically acceptable with a substantial confidence rating for past performance or completed evaluations of all responsive proposals, the government would conduct a best-value tradeoff analysis based on those proposals determined to be technically acceptable considering the past performance rating and price. Id. Eleven offerors, including SysCom, submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. SysCom passed the initial compliance review and was ranked second lowest for price. AR, Tab 39, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 8; AR, Tab 38, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 20. The agency evaluated SysCom’s proposal for technical acceptability and found that it was unacceptable under both the staffing plan and mission essential services plan subfactors. AR, Tab 38, SSEB Report at 22, 24. The proposal was therefore evaluated as unacceptable under the technical factor and eliminated from the competition. Id. at 26. On February 18, SysCom timely filed its protest. DISCUSSION SysCom protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal under the staffing plan and mission essential services subfactors. SysCom also asserts that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate its past performance and unreasonably evaluated its price.