Integral Federal, Inc. (W911QX-25-R-A001)

B-423672 Aug 01, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integral Federal, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (Survice), a small business of Belcamp, Maryland, by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QX-25-R-A001, issued for research and development services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserts that the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.206(a) by failing to amend the RFP when the Army's requirements allegedly changed. We dismiss the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Integral Federal, Inc. File: B-423672 Date: August 1, 2025 Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Anuj Vohra, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Shane Riley, Esq., The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC, for the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal and violated federal regulation by not amending the solicitation is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the awarded value of the task order is below the threshold for GAO jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the awardee's proposed price exceeded that threshold. DECISION Integral Federal, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (Survice), a small business of Belcamp, Maryland, by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QX-25-R-A001, issued for research and development services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserts that the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.206(a) by failing to amend the RFP when the Army's requirements allegedly changed. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on April 16, 2025, to firms holding the Army's Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, using the procedures of FAR part 16. Protest, exh. 6, RFP at 52.[1] The RFP sought research and development services to support the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Analysis Center. Protest, exh. 7, Performance Work Statement at 55. The RFP anticipated the award of a hybrid task order with both firm-fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) and cost-no-fee CLINs, with a period of performance of a base year, four 1-year option periods, and a 6‑month extension period. RFP at 35. The solicitation contemplated award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering four factors: transition-in plan, technical, cost/price, and small business participation plan. Id. at 38-48, 50. By the May 15 due date for receipt of proposals, two firms submitted proposals: Integral and Survice. On June 4, the agency informed the protester that it was not the successful offeror and that the agency had awarded the task order to Survice for $28,551,706.[2] Protest, exh. 2, Notice to Unsuccessful Offeror at 16. On June 12, the Army provided Integral with a debriefing. As relevant here, that debriefing included the following note: “This action was awarded for $28,551,705.63. Prior to award it was determined certain labor categories were determined to no longer be required, therefore they were not included as part of the award.” Protest, exh. 1, Debriefing at 11. On June 13, Integral submitted questions regarding the debriefing, and on June 20, the agency responded.[3] On June 25, this protest followed. DISCUSSION Our Office has jurisdiction to hear a protest of the issuance or proposed issuance of a task order by a defense agency if one of two conditions are met: first, if the protester alleges that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the IDIQ contract under which the order was issued, or second, if the protester challenges an order “valued in excess” of $35,000,000. 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f)(1). Our analysis below considers the second condition; there is no assertion that the protest meets the first. In addition to challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its proposal, the protester argues that the Army's decision to eliminate certain labor categories from the awarded task order constitutes a material change to the agency's requirements that should have prompted the agency to amend the solicitation.