In its protest, Salient alleged, among other things, that Abacus’s cost/price was unrealistically low. Salient filed a protest with our Office, which we docketed as B‑416390. After a ten-month evaluation period, USCIS issued the task order to Abacus.
Twelve offerors, including Abacus and Salient, submitted proposals. The agency explains that it anticipated a “significant amount” of work to be performed on a cost reimbursement basis. The solicitation further stated that, as part of the cost realism analysis, the agency would “valuate each offeror’s proposed costs for all cost reimbursable CLINs in relation to the offeror’s specific technical approach to ensure consistency.” Id. The solicitation also provided that the agency would perform a cost realism analysis of the proposed labor costs for all cost reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs) to “determine if the cost proposal is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the methods and approach in the technical proposal.” Id. Id.Īs relevant here, with respect to the cost/price factor, the solicitation provided that “ost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with one or more cost analysis and/or price analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404.” Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. The management approach and technical approach factors were equally important and each more important that the past performance factor. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: management approach, technical approach, past performance, and cost/price. The solicitation anticipated the award of a hybrid fixed-price-award-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, and cost-reimbursement task order with a period of performance of a base year followed by up to three option years. Specifically, the performance work statement required the contractor to provide service desk support, field services, service center services, account management services, hardware incident resolution, and continuity of operations coordination. The solicitation contemplated the award of a task order, referred to as the National Area and Transnational Information Technology Operations and Next-Generation Support Services (NATIONS II) task order, to fulfill a requirement of USCIS’s Office of Information Technology to provide a broad range of information technology support services to agency end users. RFP at 1 First Contracting Officers’ Statement (COS), Jan. 2, 2019, at 2. On June 27, 2017, USCIS issued the solicitation under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to firms holding DHS Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading-Edge Solutions (EAGLE) II indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. Abacus argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. (Salient), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSCCG-17-R-00010, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for information technology services. GAO recommends partial reimbursement of protest costs where the record shows that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious challenge to the agency’s cost realism analysis reimbursement is not recommended with regard to other grounds where the record shows that the grounds were independent and therefore severable from the protester’s clearly meritorious ground, and were not themselves clearly meritorious.Ībacus Technology Corporation (Abacus), of Chevy Chase, Maryland, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Salient CRGT, Inc. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Cornell, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.Įlizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Ginsberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Jochum, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, and Alexander B.
0 kommentar(er)
