Monthly Archive for: ‘November, 2014’
PEO-BES, Carl Shofner, answered questions after welcoming industry to the Nov 18 Vendor Exchange Forum and the inevitable and immediate questions came about NETCENTSII contract status and recent protest activity.
He stated it was a high priority to have NETCENTSII NetOps Small Business available within six months.
Breaking that down from a PEO perspective, six months supports a timeline as follows:
- Late December award announcement
- Christmas holidays
- Jan 5th – Ten business days (3x day) for Debriefs begin after January New Year
- Jan 16th – Begins ten calendar day period for Protest filing
- Jan 26th – Protest Period closes
- Jan 26 – May 6th – GAO 100 day Protest period
So while we might flinch when he mentioned six months, it seems to accurately capture a PEO level planning period. Mr. Shofner also indicated the NETOPS F&O effort was on-hold as resources were devoted to the NETOPS Small Business protest resolution. The previously announced award date for the NETOPS Full & Open contract will slip.
GAO announces decisions in the NETCENTS-2 Application Services Protests.
Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia; HP Enterprise Services, LLC, of Plano, Texas; Harris IT Services Corporation, of Herndon, Virginia; and Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protest the award of multiple contracts by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8771-09-R-0020, for the acquisition of a wide array of information technology services and products. The protesters generally assert that the agency misevaluated the proposals and made unreasonable source selection decisions. HP additionally alleges that the agency conducted inadequate and unequal discussions.
We sustain the protests.
1. Agency’s cost realism analysis is not supported where evaluation record is devoid of any analysis of the sufficiency of the offerors’ proposed labor categories and labor hours, or meaningful explanation concerning the agency’s basis for accepting the proposed labor hours as realistic to complete the work.
2. Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation is sustained where the record does not establish that the evaluation considered the appropriateness and reasonableness of the offerors’ labor mixes and labor hours, as required by the solicitation.
3. Protest that past performance evaluation was unreasonable is sustained where agency used a methodology to determine performance confidence ratings that significantly overemphasized relevancy-related criteria over quality, and produced misleading results.
4. Agency’s tradeoff decision considering past performance and cost/price was unreasonable where the past performance evaluation methodology produced misleading results, and where the source selection was in part based on considerations not set forth in the solicitation’s best value award criteria.
5. Protest that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions concerning price reasonableness is denied where the source selection decision did not consider protester unawardable due to price; protest that agency conducted unequal discussions is denied where post-discussions exchanges with one offeror did not permit modification or revision of that offeror’s proposal.”