Protest alleging that awardee was ineligible and challenging technical evaluation is denied. The protester alleged the awardee was ineligible because the contract was set aside for small businesses, and the SBA had found the awardee was no longer small. But GAO reasoned that under SBA regulations, if a post-award size determination is appealed to OHA, and OHA affirms, the agency has a choice to either terminate the award or not exercise the contract’s next option. Here, the awardee appealed the size determination, and OHA affirmed. The agency chose not terminate, which SBA regulations permitted. The protester also alleged the agency improperly deducted points from its technical score. GAO, however, found the technical evaluation unobjectionable.
The Air Force issued a solicitation to holders of GSA’s One Acquisition Solution of Integrated Services small business IDIQ contract. The solicitation sought support for the Air Force’s life cycle management center. The solicitation’s technical factor required offerors to assign themselves scores for different subfactors. The Air Force validated scores during evaluation. If an offeror’s score could not be substantiated, the Air Force deducted points. Award would be made to the highest rated technical proposal with a realistic and reasonable price.
Amaze Technologies, LLC and Apogee Engineering, among others, submitted proposals. Amaze assigned itself 66,742 points under the technical factor. Apogee assigned itself 64,816 points. The Air Force deducted 14,000 points from Amaze’s proposal, but it did not deduct any from Apogee’s. The agency selected Apogee for award. Amaze protested.
Amaze first argued that the Air Force should have terminated the award because Apogee was no longer a small business. As noted, the solicitation was issued to holders of a GSA small business IDIQ. But in a size protest arising out of this procurement, the SBA had determined that Apogee was no longer small. The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) had affirmed the size determination. Thus, Amaze contended, if Apogee was not small, it was not eligible for the task order.
GAO noted that under SBA regulations, when (1) SBA determines after award that the awardee is no longer small, and (2) the determination is not timely appealed to OHA, then the agency must terminate the award. But if a timely appeal to OHA is filed, and OHA affirms the size determination, the agency can either terminate or not exercise the next option.
Here, after award, the SBA found that Apogee was not small, and Apogee timely appealed to OHA, which affirmed the size determination. Under SBA regulations, the contracting officer could either terminate the award or not exercise the next option. The Air Force chose to not terminate, which it was allowed to do under the regulations. GAO had no grounds to object to the agency’s decision.
Amaze also challenged the agency’s deduction of points under five technical subfactors. GAO noted that Amaze’s proposed score was 66,742, and Apogee’s validated score was 64,816. Thus, if at least 1,927 of the points deducted from Amaze’s proposal were reasonably deducted, then Amaze would not have been the highest-rated offeror. GAO found that the Air Force’s deduction of 5,000 points under a subfactor for integration engineering support was justified.
To substantiate its score under the integration engineering subfactor, Amaze submitted a report from a task order performed by one its subcontractors. It claimed this report showed that three individuals working on the task order were performing integration engineering support. The Air Force, however, found that Amaze failed to validate its proposed score for this subfactor because in the task order it provided as substantiation, the individuals performed program management, not engineering support roles.
Amaze argued that the Air Force had overlooked information in its proposal. Specifically, Amaze contended, the task order it provided as substantiation contained identical engineering support language as the solicitation in this case.
GAO found that this missed the mark. The issue was not whether the supporting task order contained the same language as the solicitation, but rather whether any of the personnel identified by Amaze performed in relevant roles. In this case, the substantiating documentation categorized the individuals as performing program management roles. Indeed, the Air Force had contacted the government point of contact for the substantiating task order and confirmed that the personnel performed certification and accreditation but not integration engineering support. The Air Force’s deduction of points was reasonable.
Amaze is represented by Matthew P. Moriarty and Ian P. Patterson of Schoonover & Moriarty, LLC. The intervenor, Apogee, is represented by William M. Jack, Amba M. Datta, and Ken M. Kanzawa of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Major Matthew W. Ramage-While and Captain David J. Ely of the Air Force. GAO attorneys John Sorrenti and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.