#Sefanit abacus technology professional

A, Notice of Award and Debrief to Unsuccessful Offeror at 1-2 (June 27, 2019). The DA determined that the task order should be issued to MicroTech. The agency’s notice advised Abacus that the fair opportunity decision authority (DA) considered each offeror’s risk ratings and the significant price differential between the two offerors’ total evaluated price and concluded that MicroTech’s proposal was the most advantageous combination of risk and total evaluated price. The agency’s notice also indicated that MicroTech’s proposal was assigned a risk rating of moderate under one technical evaluated subfactor, with a total evaluated price of $41,965,204. In that notice, the agency indicated that Abacus’s proposal was assigned a risk rating of low under all technical evaluation subfactors, with a total evaluated price of $64,407,498. On June 27, 2019, Abacus received an unsuccessful offeror notice and debriefing letter in which the agency notified Abacus that the task order was issued to MicroTech. Following an evaluation of proposals, the agency conducted a best-value tradeoff and selected MicroTech’s proposal as the best value. Multiple offerors submitted proposals, including Abacus and MicroTech.

#Sefanit abacus technology professional

The solicitation did not include FAR provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

In preparing their employee compensation plan, the solicitation instructed offerors to discuss how their proposed compensation package reflected a sound management approach, an understanding of the contract requirements, and how the proposed salary and fringe benefits would facilitate recruitment and retention of employees. Id.Īs relevant here, to assist the contracting officer in making the responsibility determination, the solicitation required offerors to submit a total compensation plan for all professional employees to include a completed total compensation worksheet listing the salaries and fringe benefit package for their professional employees, surveys and studies, and assessment. Offerors whose proposed price was determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced might not be considered for award. Under the cost/price evaluation factor, the solicitation stated that cost/price proposals “should support the proposed technical approach” and would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Under each technical subfactor, proposals would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and proposals would then be assigned a risk rating of low, moderate, or high risk for each technical subfactor. The technical evaluation factor had three subfactors: technical capability, management, and technical experience. The solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated under two evaluation factors, technical and cost/price.

at 103-104.Īs amended, the solicitation established that the task order would be issued to the offeror who was deemed responsible and whose technically acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government, defined as “the offer which presents the most advantageous combination of risk and total evaluated price.” FOPR amend. The PWS also included estimated staffing levels, stated in terms of full-time equivalents (FTE) for each labor category, for each geographic location, and by year. In general terms, the performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to provide qualified professional employees in specified labor categories, for specified geographic locations, to successfully perform all stated PWS tasks. The competition was limited to small business offerors who hold one of the agency’s NETCENTS-II NetOps & Infrastructure multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for aġ-year base period with three 1-year options. The FOPR was issued on March 25, 2019, pursuant to the fair opportunity ordering procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 16.505, for a contractor to provide network and infrastructure support services at multiple Air Force locations in Europe.

The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s technical proposal and failed to assess whether the awardee could perform the task order requirements at its proposed price. FA5641-19-R-A002, which was issued by Department of the Air Force, for network and infrastructure support services. Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus), of Chevy Chase, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Micro Technologies, LLC (MicroTech), of Vienna, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No.