The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied four companies’ protest to the General Services Administration (GSA) new source selection methodology and number of contractors to be awarded for information technology (IT) services.
GSA designed the Alliant 2 procurement to establish multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts where fixed-price, cost reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour task orders could be issues for a large range of information technology services. The Request for Proposal (RFP) provides for a 5-year base period and one 5-year option period, with a total value ceiling for all task orders of $50 billion.
Alliant 2 follows the Alliant 1 government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC), awarded in 2007. Alliant is the GSA’s premier enterprise GWAC, meant to provide access to customized IT solutions from a large pool of industry partners for long-term planning and large-scale program requirements. Alliant 2 is a next generation GWAC vehicle “for comprehensive information technology (IT) solutions through customizable hardware, software, and services solutions purchased as a total package,” GSA said on its webpage explaining the program.
Following market research and acquisition planning GSA issues two solicitations for Alliant 2 “Master” contracts. The protesters challenged the terms of one of them, an unrestricted RFP.
The RFP provides that the agency will select about 60 awardees using a “highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price” evaluation scheme. The offerors were then to assign themselves points based on the categories of relevant experience; past performance; systems, certifications, and clearances; and organizational risk assessment. GSA sought to maximize objectivity with the goal of the top 60 offerors winning awards.
The protestors were Sevatec, InfoReliance, EIS, and B&E, who lodged three complaints before closing time for the receipt of proposals. The first protest was that use of a “highest technically rater offerors with a fair and reasonable price” scheme is impermissible for failing to properly consider price because the Federal Acquisition Regulation permits agencies to use any one or a combination of source selection approaches to obtain the best value.
The second protest was that GSA improperly assigned points to small businesses under the solicitation evaluation scheme., This was denied because the protestors did not show the agency’s allocation of points was unreasonable or otherwise alleged that the agency is engaging in proper disparate treatment.
Finally, GAO denied a protest arguing GSA is making an insufficient number of awards to ensure adequate competition at the task order level. Records show the agency intends to award 60 contracts and has taken other steps to encourage competition at the task order level, the GAO said.
In the wake of this Jan. 11 decision, Mary Davie, GSA assistant commissioner at the office of information technology category (ITC), said in an agency blog post Tuesday that “I am pleased to announce that we are continuing with the evaluation and award (planned for Fall 2017) of GSA’s $50 billion Alliant 2 Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (GWAC).
The decision reinforces that the government has the flexibility “to try new and innovative source selection methodologies,” and “as a proactive partner with federal agencies, GSA is always willing to try new ways to better serve government and improve mission delivery. Our goal is to create comprehensive IT solutions available from the very best companies,” Davie added.