SMS Data Products Group, Inc. (FA8773-24-R-0002)

B-423341,B-423341.2,B-423341.3 May 29, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SMS Data Products Group, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Abacus Technology Corporation, a small business of Chevy 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. Page 2 B-423341 et al. Chase, Maryland, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8773-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for intranet control support services to operate, manage, and defend the Air Force's portion of the Department of Defense information network. The protester argues that various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' price proposals was unreasonable, the agency engaged in misleading discussions with SMS, and the best-value decision is flawed. 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: SMS Data Products Group, Inc. File: B-423341; B-423341.2; B-423341.3 Date: May 29, 2025 Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., and Robert C. Starling, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Abacus Technology Corporation, the intervenor. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., Major Oladipo O. Odejide, and Melissa M. Garcia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is not premature where the protester did not timely submit questions to the agency and therefore the debriefing was considered to be concluded on the date it was delivered, and the protest was filed within 10 days of that date. 2. Protest of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's price and professional employee compensation plan is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46 and the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest that the agency engaged in misleading discussions is denied where the record shows the protester exercised its business judgment and increased its price rather than provide additional information to justify labor rates identified by the agency as unrealistic during exchanges with offerors. 4. Protest challenging the agency's best-value decision is denied where the agency's decision is reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION SMS Data Products Group, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Abacus Technology Corporation, a small business of Chevy Chase, Maryland, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8773-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for intranet control support services to operate, manage, and defend the Air Force's portion of the Department of Defense information network. The protester argues that various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' price proposals was unreasonable, the agency engaged in misleading discussions with SMS, and the best-value decision is flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 21, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, set aside for small business holders of the Department of the Army's responsive strategic sourcing for services multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3. SMS was the incumbent contractor and previously performed the same services sought by this procurement. The FOPR contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order with a period of performance to include a 2-month transition period, a 10-month base period, four 12-month option periods, and a 6-month option to extend. Agency Report (AR), Tab 35, Instruction to Offerors (ITO) Amend. 1 at 9. The FOPR stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors: technical, past performance, and price. Id. at 15. The technical factor would be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable. Id. Past performance was to be assessed and assigned one of the following confidence ratings: substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited or no confidence. Id. at 18. Regarding price, the FOPR stated that total evaluated price would be evaluated for completeness, price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Id. at 19.