Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

2020 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 273

Comptroller General of the United States

September 9, 2020

B-418796

Opinion

DECISION

Sumaria Systems, Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts, protests the provisions of fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8622-20-R-8244, issued by the Department of the Air Force pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to provide support services for F-15 aircraft. Sumaria asserts that the solicitation's source selection methodology [*2]  fails to consider price and that the evaluation criteria are otherwise unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2020, the Air Force issued the FOPR to small businesses holding indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration's One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) program. 1 The FOPR contemplates the award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order 2 for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, and seeks proposals to provide services supporting the Air Force's mission to "design, develop, integrate, test, produce, deploy, modernize, sustain and support" the F-15 aircraft for the United States and for U.S. foreign military sales (FMS) partners worldwide. 3 FOPR at 19. The FOPR identifies various engineering, professional, and administrative support services (EPASS) the contractor will be required to perform; 4 provides labor hour estimates, by labor category, for which offerors must propose direct and indirect rates; and estimates the value of the task order to be $ 270 million. The closing date for submission of proposals was June 5, 2020.

The solicitation provides that award will be made to the highest technically rated offeror (HTRO) with a realistic and reasonable price, and establishes two evaluation factors: technical and cost/price. FOPR at 3, 158-59. With regard to evaluation under the technical factor, the solicitation establishes a point-scoring system based on objectively [*4]  verifiable criteria that measure the extent of an offeror's prior experience and the quality of its past performance. 5 The solicitation explains that the criteria are intended to maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO, noting that an offeror with an extensive and positive past performance history "presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance," while an offeror with a more limited or less positive performance history presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance. Id. at 167.

With regard to cost/price, offerors will be required to provide direct and indirect rates associated with the various labor categories and levels of effort identified in the solicitation. The FOPR provides that the agency will evaluate cost/price on the basis of reasonableness, realism, and balance, using the techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1. Id. at 179-81. In performing the cost/price evaluation, the agency will establish a most probable cost (MPC) for the labor categories identified in the solicitation based on a survey of data that "may include, but is not limited to: General Schedule (GS), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Economic Research Institute (ERI), Salary.com, in-house subject matter experts, and historical data . . . along with data from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)." Id. at 180. Proposed [*6]  cost/prices that are more than 10 percent above or below the MPC may be considered unreasonable or unrealistic, respectively. Id. at 180-81. The solicitation also provides for assessment of unbalanced pricing to determine whether "the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated" and provides for rejection of a proposal with such pricing. Id. at 181.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 273 *

Matter of: Sumaria Systems, Inc.

CORE TERMS

solicitation, offeror, protest, methodology, score, maximum, point-scores