Protest challenging the technical acceptability of awardee’s technical proposal for allegedly failing to satisfy a material solicitation requirement is denied, where the requirement to staff an IT help desk on a 24/7/365 basis was not a material requirement of the solicitation, and where the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee’s proposed level of effort and staffing demonstrated it understood the requirement.
GAO also found the protester’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal and its evaluation of the awardee’s cost/price proposal to be without merit, concluding they generally amounted to disagreement with the agency’s judgment.
Federal Acquisition Services Alliant JV LLC protested the Army’s award of an IT support services task order to Octo Consulting Group Inc., challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s non-cost/price proposals and the awardee’s cost/price proposal.
First, FASA argued that Octo’s proposal should have been found unacceptable for failing to address how it would provide customer assistance to users of all workstation software systems on a 24×7 basis, three hundred and sixty-five days per year. FASA argued the agency should have assigned a deficiency, rather than a weakness.
In response, the agency explained that fully addressing the 24/7/365 requirement was not a material requirement and, further, the task itself was one of many requirements in the PWS and one subcomponent of the larger desktop and end user support requirement. The agency argued the assignment of a weakness, rather than a deficiency, was reasonable. While Octo’s proposal did not directly state that support would be provided on a 24/7/365 basis, the evaluators concluded that Octo’s proposed level of effort and staffing demonstrated that it understood the requirement.
GAO found this reasonable. The agency recognized the lack of detail in Octo’s proposal regarding 24/7/365 coverage and assigned a weakness, which GAO found consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme.
FASA also raised numerous challenges to the agency’s technical evaluation of its own proposal, arguing the agency failed to read or misunderstood its proposal. According to FASA, without these errors, its proposal would have been rated outstanding instead of good.
Under the technical approach factor, while the agency assigned five strengths to its proposal, FASA argued that three should have been significant strengths, because Octo received significant strengths “for essentially the same features. For example, FASA argued that its and Octo’s approaches under the datacenter management and support task were equivalent.
In response, the agency explained that Octo provided a detailed explanation of its datacenter security approach and an extensive and well-organized approach to transitioning and executing database management and support. According to the agency, Octo’s proposal went further in describing its approach to the requirement, and these slight qualitative differences resulted in a significant strength instead of a strength. GAO found no reasons to object to the evaluation.
Finally, FASA argued that the agency failed to evaluate Octo’s hourly rates on a labor category basis and challenged the agency’s use of an average labor rate to evaluate Octo’s labor rates. In response, the agency explained that it evaluated offerors’ prices in terms of level of effort, consistency with the technical approach, and overall fairness and reasonableness, using both an IGCE and an average labor rate. The agency found that Octo’s proposed average labor rate was higher than the average, but lower than the IGCE. In addition, the agency found no inconsistent or over/under inflated rates and concluded that Octo’s proposed price was consistent with its technical and staffing approach.
GAO found this reasonable. GAO found no evidence supporting FASA’s arguments that the solicitation required the agency to evaluate Octo’s hourly rates on a labor category basis or that it prohibited the use of an average labor rate to evaluate Octo’s labor rates.
Federal Acquisition Services Alliant JV LLC is represented by Gunjan R. Talati, Lawrence M. Prosen, Christian F. Henel, Ethan M. Knott, and Nicholas Nieto of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. Octo Consulting Group Inc. is represented by Damien C. Specht, Ethan E. Marsh, and Sandeep N. Nandivada of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The government is represented by Major Adam Kama and Scott N. Flesch, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
