According to reports, a protest has been filed on the NETCENTS-2 NETOPS Small Business contract today. The protest was filed within the five day period following completion of debriefs; all contracts actions are suspended.
No further details are known.
Air Force awards Application Services contracts to 20 of the 21 offerors who submitted bids.
According to the Defense.gov site:
- Accenture Federal Services, Arlington, Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0001);
- BAE Systems Engineering, McLean Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0002);
- Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0003);
- Computer Sciences Corp., Falls Church Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0004);
- Dynamics Research Corp., Andover, Massachusetts (FA8732-15-D-0005);
- Harris IT Services Corp., Herndon, Virginia (FA8732-13-D-0005);
- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services, Herndon, Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0006);
- ManTech Systems Engineering Corp., Fairfax, Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0007);
- Vencore, Reston, Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0008);
- Leidos, Reston, Virginia (FA8732-15-D-0009)
were added to the $960,000,000 multiple award, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract awarded on July 29, 2013 for Network-Centric Solutions2 (NETCENTSII) Application Services. This totals 20 awarded ID/IQ contracts under NETCENTSII Application Services full and open. The contract is expected to be complete by April 1, 2025.
This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with 21 offers received. Fiscal year 2013, 2014 and 2015 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,500 are being obligated to each contractor at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Maxwell Air Force Base-Gunter Annex, Alabama, is the contracting activity.
Contracts Awards were announced July 22nd for Lockheed Martin Corp., Jacobs Technology, SRA International, L-3 National Security Solutions, Raytheon, InfoReliance Corp., CACI-ISS, Inc., Northrop Grumman Information Systems, General Dynamics Information Technology, and International Business Machines Corp.
The GAO has apparently completed their deliberation on the CDO Technologies reconsideration protest on the NETCENTSII NetOps and Infrastructure Solutions contract. The Bid Protest Docket entry has been updated but no decision has been released. Outcome: Denied.
GAO Bid Protest Docket Entry
Protestor: CDO Technologies, Inc.
Solicitation Number: FA8771-09-R-0019
Agency: Department of the Air Force
File Number: B-409686.15
Date Decided: Dec 12, 2014
Filed Date: Jul 25, 2014
Due Date: Nov 3, 2014
This is the last GAO protest that has been outstanding on the NETCENTSII NetOps SB contract awards. The GAO had previously affirmed protests filed by Abacus Technology Corporation and D&S Consultants while ruling against EMW, VMDn, Futron, CDO Technologies, and Pragmatics.
The Air Force is expected to make corrective action soon as indicated at the November Vendor Exchange Forum at Gunter Annex. Twelve companies received awards and signed contract documents in March of this year which have not been rescinded. Contract actions were suspended in April as the first protests were filed.
Link to GAO Bid Protest Docket
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.”