Specifically, the agency would review an offeror’s staffing plan for correlation to the PWS, WBS, and labor summary, as well as to assess whether the staffing plan conveyed an understanding of the PWS requirements and included sufficient resources to meet the requirements.
ABACUS TECHNOLOGY CORP FULL
In evaluating proposals under the enterprise IT staffing plan subfactor, the Air Force would assess an offeror’s approach to ensuring the full range of services in support of the PWS requirements. Moreover, the RFP expressly advised that the Air Force would “not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal.” Id. In addition, the RFP advised that proposals were to be “clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The staffing plan was to correlate with the PWS and work breakdown structure (WBS) and be supported by an offeror’s labor summary table (included as exhibit D to the RFP).
With respect to this subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to submit, among other things, a staffing plan narrative that described personnel labor categories, experience, certifications, education levels, and security clearance levels. Of relevance to these protests is the Air Force’s evaluation under the first enterprise IT support subfactor, enterprise IT staffing plan. The RFP provided that the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. The AFNCR enterprise IT support factor contained three equally-weighted subfactors and was to be evaluated based on two “distinct but related” assessments resulting in a factor-level technical rating and technical risk rating. The NMCC support factor contained two subfactors and was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. With respect to technical approach, the RFP identified two factors: NMCC support and enterprise IT support. Pursuant to the RFP, the task order was to be issued on a best-value basis, considering technical approach and price. The PWS outlined numerous contractor requirements for the AFNCR enterprise, such as program management ( e.g., contract administration), IT operations and maintenance ( e.g., help desk services), and planning and engineering, as well as support for the NMCC. RFP §§ B, L Performance Work Statement (PWS) ¶ 1.1.2. The RFP provided for the issuance of a fixed‑price-award-fee task order for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options for a wide range of information technology (IT) and telecommunications services and support for the the Air Force National Capital Region (AFNCR) and the National Military Command Center (NMCC). On November 2, 2015, the Air Force issued the RFP pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to holders of Network-Centric Solutions-2 (NETCENTS-2) NetOps and Infrastructure small business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The protesters challenge the evaluation of their proposals, including the adequacy of discussions, and Abacus also protests the evaluation of Technica’s proposal. FA7014-16-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Air Force for information technology and telecommunications services and support. Protest of evaluation of awardee’s proposal is denied where awardee’s decision to propose optional personnel was not contrary to the solicitation and evaluation was otherwise unobjectionable.Ībacus Technology Corporation, a small business of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and SMS Data Products Group, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protest the issuance of a task order to Technica Corporation, a small business of Dulles, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No.
Protests alleging misleading discussions and objecting to agency’s decision not to seek clarifications are denied where discussions were fair and meaningful and agency was under no obligation to seek clarifications.ģ. Protests of evaluation of offerors’ proposals with respect to staffing are denied where evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation agency findings related to staffing approach, key personnel, and security clearance distribution were supported by the record.Ģ. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.ġ. Mandelkehr, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Beary, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Technica Corporation, the intervenor. Bryan Wilson, Esq., and Andrew McBride, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, for SMS Data Products Group, Inc., the protesters. Matthew Carter, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Abacus Technology Corporation John McNichols, Esq., C.
0 kommentar(er)
