TEAM CSI Joint Venture, LLC

Decision

Matter of: TEAM CSI Joint Venture, LLC

File: B-422617.2, B-422617.3

Date: March 5, 2025

SBA, not our

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

Team CSI Joint Venture LLC, a small business joint venture of San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to AccelGov LLC, a mentor-protégé joint venture[1] of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 642369727, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to provide enterprise information technology (IT) support services to the National Defense University (NDU). The protester challenges various aspects of DISA’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals, alleges that DISA should have referred AccelGov to the SBA because the firm is not a small business, and protests the best-value tradeoff decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, the agency issued the RFP to small business holders of DISA’s ENCORE III multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The RFP sought a contractor to provide enterprise IT support services, including program management, IT services support, and networking, to the NDU.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of hybrid fixed-price task orders with cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers for travel, with a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods. Id.

Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors: technical approach, quality/management approach, past performance, and price. RFP at 6. The RFP provided that technical approach was the most important factor, quality/management approach and past performance were equally important, and when combined, the nonprice factors were significantly more important than price. Id.

The technical approach factor consisted of the following equally important subfactors: system availability and recovery; change management; cybersecurity; modernization; and software development support. RFP at 6-7. The quality/management approach factor consisted of two equally weighted subfactors: quality control plan and management and staffing plan. Id. at 7. The RFP stated that DISA would assign proposals one of the following adjectival ratings under each subfactor: high confidence, some confidence, and low confidence. RFP at 6-7; AR, Tab 1g, RFP attach. 7, Evaluation Tables at 1.

The agency received five proposals, including the proposals submitted by Team CSI and AccelGov. AR, Tab 6, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 3. After evaluating the offerors’ proposals, DISA selected AccelGov’s proposal for award, and Team CSI filed a protest with our Office challenging the evaluation of its own proposal and the award decision. COS/MOL at 5. We dismissed the protest as academic after DISA advised our Office of its intent to take corrective action by reevaluating the protester’s proposal under the technical approach and quality/management approach factors and making a new award decision. Team CSI Joint Venture, LLC, B‑422617, June 21, 2024 (unpublished decision).

Following dismissal of Team CSI’s first protest, the agency reevaluated the protester’s proposal, and the evaluation results for the proposals submitted by Team CSI and AccelGov were as follows:

AR, Tab 8a, Debriefing at 1.

When the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) evaluated Team CSI’s proposal under the technical approach subfactors, the TEB assigned a rating of some confidence where it found that the protester’s proposal did not adequately address requirements. AR, Tab 4, Technical Approach Evaluation at 2-7. For example, when evaluating the protester’s proposal under the change management subfactor, the TEB observed: “Considering the full change management lifecycle, the Offeror does not provide an approach to the closeout phase of the change management process. The Offeror references their process but does not provide details regarding their capability to execute the change management closeout function.” Id. at 5.

When the TEB evaluated Team CSI’s proposal under the management and staffing plan subfactor, the TEB identified several aspects of the proposal that decreased the agency’s confidence in the protester’s ability to successfully perform the contract. For example, the TEB found that the protester did not fully substantiate its approach for task areas three and four of the performance work statement (PWS). AR, Tab 5, Quality/Management Approach Evaluation at 7-8. For both task areas, the TEB concluded that Team CSI could not accomplish the requirements with the labor hours, labor mix, and processes proposed.[3] Id.

The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority, reviewed and analyzed the TEB’s evaluation findings for each proposal. AR, Tab 6, Price Negotiation Memorandum at 73-79. The contracting officer found that AccelGov’s proposal was technically superior to Team CSI’s proposal under the technical approach factor and the quality/management approach factor. Id. at 73, 78. The contracting officer concluded that because AccelGov’s proposal was higher-rated under the most important factors and lower-priced, it represented the best value, and DISA issued the task order to AccelGov. Id.; see also COS/MOL at 16.

After being notified of the source selection decision and receiving a debriefing, Team CSI filed this protest with our Office.[4]

DISCUSSION

Team CSI protests the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the technical approach factor and the quality/management approach factor, as well as DISA’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the past performance factor. Additionally, the protester asserts that DISA should have questioned whether AccelGov was a small business and referred the matter to the SBA. Lastly, Team CSI challenges the best-value tradeoff decision. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[5]

Preliminary Issues

Before turning to the merits of Team CSI’s protest, we address the agency’s request for partial dismissal.[6] In its initial protest, Team CSI alleges that the agency evaluated the offerors’ proposals disparately; AccelGov proposed key personnel that are unavailable or that it never intended to use; and DISA should have referred the awardee to the SBA for a size determination, alleging that the awardee does not qualify as a small business for the procurement.

Prior to submitting its report, DISA filed a request that our Office dismiss these protest grounds. After reviewing the request for partial dismissal and the protester’s response, we advised the parties that the agency need not respond to the allegations concerning the alleged unequal treatment or the awardee’s key personnel in its agency report. GAO Notice Concerning Reqs. for Partial Dismissal. We address the dismissal of these two allegations below.[7]

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for the protest, and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient. 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4), (f). That is, a protest must include sufficient factual bases to establish a reasonable potential that the protester’s allegations may have merit; bare allegations or speculation are insufficient to meet this requirement. Chags Health Info. Tech., LLC, B-420940.3 et al., Dec. 14, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 315 at 5. Where a protester relies on bare assertions, without further supporting details or evidence, our Office will find that the protest ground amounts to no more than speculation and does not meet the standard contemplated by our regulations for a legally sufficient protest. Id.

We first address the protester’s allegations of unequal treatment under two of the technical approach subfactors. Team CSI argues that although its proposal met the requirements, its proposal received lower ratings than the awardee’s proposal, and these discordant evaluation results indicate the agency applied different standards to the offerors’ proposals, evidencing unequal treatment. Team CSI does not allege that the relevant aspects of its proposal were similar to the awardee’s; instead, it maintains that its proposal also met the requirements. Further, Team CSI asserts that the agency’s evaluation “suggests that the Agency accepted an assertion by the awardee” that its approach was more complete, and that the agency then viewed anything less to be incomplete--in other words, the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria by using AccelGov’s proposal as the basis for evaluation rather than the terms of the solicitation. Protest at 27-28, 40. DISA contends that these protest allegations are legally and factually insufficient because they are based on unsupported speculation about the nature of the agency’s evaluation. 1st Req. for Dismissal at 3-5.

We agree with the agency. The only support that Team CSI offers for its allegations is its speculation about the contents of AccelGov’s proposal and DISA’s conclusions about the relative merits of each offeror’s approach. For example, Team CSI speculates that DISA downgraded its proposal under the change management subfactor because the protester did not propose the same configuration management database tool as the awardee. Protest at 40. The protester, however, does not know what tools AccelGov proposed or how that aspect of its proposal was evaluated. Such speculation is insufficient to support a protest. Raytheon Blackbird Techs., Inc., B-417522, B‑417522.2, July 11, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 254 at 4 (“[T]he allegation amounts to little more than conjecture and does not provide a valid basis of protest.”).

We next address the protest argument concerning the awardee’s key personnel. Team CSI contends that AccelGov proposed an individual that it never intended to use during performance, an improper practice known as a bait and switch. Protest at 61. To support this allegation, the protester states that after the task order was issued, AccelGov contacted an incumbent employee and offered him a role as AccelGov’s cyber team lead. Id.; Protest exh. W, Offer Letter. Team CSI asserts that the offered role is “a clear match for the ‘Computer Security Systems Specialist--Lead,’” which the RFP designated as a key personnel position. Protest at 63-64.

DISA argues that the protest allegation is factually insufficient because the offer letter shows the offer was made by 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., rather than AccelGov, the joint venture awardee itself; the letter does not refer to the task order; and the requirements and role described in the letter do not align with the task order requirements.[8] 1st Req. for Dismissal at 5.

We dismiss Team CSI’s protest concerning the alleged unavailability of the awardee’s key personnel. As noted above, a protester must present protest grounds that are factually and legally sufficient, and where a protester’s allegations are based on speculation, factual inaccuracies, or flawed legal assumptions, we will summarily dismiss the protest. 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) and (f); Xenith Grp., LLC, B-420706, July 14, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 184 at 5. Further, to establish an impermissible bait and switch, a protester must show that a firm either knowingly or negligently represented that it would rely on specific personnel that it did not expect to furnish during contract performance, and that the misrepresentation was relied on by the agency and had a material effect on the evaluation results. Xenith Grp., supra.

Here, Team CSI’s protest allegation is not factually supported by the record. In this context, the only evidence of an impermissible bait and switch that Team CSI provides is an offer letter that does not reference the task order and that refers to a position that does not reflect the task order requirements. Protest exh. W, Offer Letter. It is entirely plausible that the offer letter pertains to a position under a different requirement. We conclude that the protester has not provided sufficient information to support its basis for protest; instead, it bases this allegation on speculation. See ICF Inc., L.L.C., B‑419049.3, B-419049.4, Mar. 9, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 117 at 8 (stating that evidence of recruitment efforts does not, by itself, establish a bait and switch claim).

Technical Proposal Evaluation

Turning to the protester’s remaining allegations, Team CSI challenges DISA’s evaluation of its proposal under the four subfactors for which the TEB assigned its proposal a rating of some confidence: system availability and recovery; change management; cybersecurity; and management and staffing subfactor. The protester generally contends that the TEB misread or ignored information in Team CSI’s proposal, rendering the evaluation unreasonable. Protest at 19-60; Comments & Supp. Protest at 5-28. The agency responds that Team CSI’s proposal lacked adequate detail in all of these areas. COS/MOL at 21‑40. For the reasons below, we deny the protester’s arguments. We discuss three representative examples of Team CSI’s challenges to the evaluation below.

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion. General Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., B-421290, B-421290.2, Mar. 1, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 60 at 4. Rather, we will review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Further, an offeror bears the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal and runs the risk of an unfavorable evaluation when it fails to do so. Resource Mgmt. Concepts, Inc., B-421320, Mar. 20, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 101 at 5. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that an evaluation was unreasonable. General Dynamics Info., supra.

As a representative example, Team CSI challenges the TEB’s finding under the system availability and recovery subfactor[9] that although Team CSI “describes their ability to identify outages and issues prior to [NDU users], they do not address their response or recovery procedures to ensure system availability. The Offeror did not provide detail concerning recovery and management of the outage.” AR, Tab 4, Technical Approach Evaluation at 3. The TEB also noted that the “proposal does not provide the necessary information to ascertain how they intend to assess, address, and resolve issues and/or outages in real time to minim[ize] downtime to the network.” Id. The protester contends that DISA ignored information in its proposal when reaching this conclusion. Protest at 33-35.

In response, the agency asserts that Team CSI’s proposal did not include details regarding how it would respond to an outage; instead, it focused on how CSI would prevent an outage. COS/MOL at 26-27. The agency states that the proposal contained generic language about recovering systems, isolating devices, and restoring capability, but the proposal did not provide details concerning how Team CSI would accomplish these tasks. Id.; see also AR, Tab 10, TEB Chair Decl. at 5. The protester asserts that this explanation is a post-hoc rationalization that differs from the contemporaneous evaluation record because, according to the protester, the agency’s contemporaneous evaluation downgraded its proposal for not addressing response or recovery procedures whatsoever--not for a perceived lack of detail. Comments & Supp. Protest at 13-14.

We find no merit to the protester’s arguments. The protester focuses on words and phrases from the TEB report in isolation when it asserts that the evaluators downgraded Team CSI’s proposal for failing to address the requirement whatsoever--as opposed to failing to provide sufficient detail. See Comments & Supp. Protest at 13-14. The protester emphasizes the TEB’s statement that the protester did not “address their response or recovery procedures to ensure system availability” and disregards the statements in the contemporaneous record where the TEB noted the aspects of Team CSI’s approach that lacked detail. See e.g., AR, Tab 4, Technical Approach Evaluation at 3 (“The Offeror did not provide detail concerning recovery and management of the outage.”). The protester has not demonstrated that DISA’s evaluation of Team CSI’s proposal was unreasonable.[10]

Moreover, to the extent the protester asserts that the declaration submitted by the TEB chair offers post-hoc explanations of the evaluation, we note that under certain circumstances, our Office will accord less weight to post-hoc arguments or analyses due to concerns that judgments made “in the heat of an adversarial process” may not represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency, which is a prerequisite of a rational evaluation and source selection process. Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B‑277263.2, et al., Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 91 at 15. However, post-protest explanations that provide a detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions, and simply fill in previously unrecorded details will generally be considered in our review of evaluations and award determinations, so long as those explanations are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record. Epsilon, Inc., B-419278, B‑419278.2, Feb. 2, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 71 at 4. In this case, we conclude that the TEB chair’s explanations are credible, and consistent with the TEB report conclusions and the contents of Team CSI’s proposal. Accordingly, we deny this protest allegation.

As a second representative example, Team CSI contends that under the change management subfactor, the agency unreasonably ignored information in its proposal regarding the closeout phase of the change management process.[11] Protest at 40-42; Comments & Supp. Protest at 18-19. In evaluating the protester’s proposal, the TEB wrote: “Considering the full change management lifecycle, the Offeror does not provide an approach to the closeout phase of the change management process. The Offeror references their process but does not provide details regarding their capability to execute the change management closeout function.” AR, Tab 4, Technical Approach Evaluation at 5. The protester points to language from its proposal discussing the change process and alleges that its proposal met the requirement to “describe their approach and capability to completing a lifecycle Change Request and change execution (from inception, to implementation, through closeout and addition to the change management database).” Protest at 40-42; RFP at 6. The agency responds that the TEB’s evaluation findings are appropriate for the protester’s proposal, which DISA states did not provide details concerning the closeout phase. COS/MOL at 30-31; AR, Tab 10, TEB Chair Decl. at 8-9.

Based on our review, we find the agency reasonably evaluated this aspect of Team CSI’s proposal. The record demonstrates that DISA reasonably determined that Team CSI’s discussion of its approach to change management failed to provide sufficient information concerning the company’s ability to execute the change management closeout function. The protester points to language in its proposal concerning the entire lifecycle of the process, audit results, and post-implementation reviews, but it does not identify any part of its proposal where it discussed the specific steps involved in closing out the change management process. See Protest at 40-42. We find no basis to question the agency’s determination that Team CSI's proposal failed to include adequate detail concerning the closeout phase of change management. As a result, this protest ground is denied.

As a final example, we discuss one of the protester’s arguments concerning the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the: management and staffing plan subfactor--the second subfactor under the quality/management approach factor.[12] The TEB found that Team CSI’s proposed management and staffing approach for PWS task area three, cybersecurity, was “not fully substantiated and [did] not clearly indicate appropriate support to meet the requirements of the PWS.” AR, Tab 5, Quality/Management Approach Evaluation at 7. The evaluators acknowledged that the protester proposed various models and techniques to bring efficiencies, and continued:

Rigid adherence to any or all these models would not enable the Offeror to accomplish these tasks in the number of hours proposed. The offeror does not detail any underlying mechanism of any of these industry buzzwords that would enable them to realize any specific efficiency which would elevate them to any heightened level of productivity such that the volume of work required could be accomplished in the hours proposed. The proposed labor hours, coupled with the proposed labor skill mix, are not appropriate to achieve the requirements, nor do they indicate appropriate support to align with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Id. The TEB concluded that the protester’s proposed approach left the agency with no more than some confidence that Team CSI could perform without agency intervention. Id. at 8. The protester argues that the viability of its proposed approach is supported by the fact that the incumbent Team CSI joint venture member has been performing nearly the same requirements using the same level of effort. Protest at 51-52. The protester complains that DISA unreasonably confined its analysis to the number of hours proposed and ignored the efficiencies in its proposed approach. Id.

In response, the agency states that the staffing under the existing contract is not instructive for the solicited requirements because there are “massive differences between the two PWS’s.” COS/MOL at 35. For example, the agency states that the incumbent PWS contains eight discrete subtasks within the cybersecurity task area, and the PWS for the RFP includes 17 cybersecurity subtasks. Id. at 36. Additionally, DISA asserts that the TEB considered the protester’s entire approach and determined that the proposed efficiencies would not enable Team CSI to perform using the hours and labor categories proposed. Id. at 35.

We find unobjectionable the agency’s evaluation of Team CSI’s management and staffing approach for PWS task area three, cybersecurity. The issue here is whether it was unreasonable for DISA to conclude that the hours and labor mix that Team CSI proposed were insufficient, notwithstanding the protester’s assertions that the efficiencies it proposed would allow it to perform the requirements. The protester has not shown this to be the case. The TEB documented its view that, given the scope and nature of the subtasks, the number of hours and labor mix that Team CSI proposed was inadequate.[13] AR, Tab 5, Quality/Management Approach Evaluation at 7‑8. Contrary to the protester’s allegations, the TEB recognized that Team CSI included models and techniques to achieve efficiencies (e.g., job mirroring, shared support, automated tools), but DISA found that the “generalized process models and techniques” were insufficient. Id. at 7. The evaluators noted that they would have more confidence in Team CSI’s ability to perform if the protester had “detailed anything that would permit some sort of efficiency that would enable them to accomplish the cybersecurity requirements at these lower than anticipated levels of staffing.” Id. at 8. The protester’s argument that this finding was improper amounts to disagreement with the agency’s judgment and does not provide a basis on which to sustain the protest.[14] Octo Consulting Grp., Inc., B‑420988, B-420988.2, Nov. 30, 2022, 2023 CPD ¶ 2 at 7.

Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the protester’s argument that DISA should have found Team CSI’s own staffing approach sufficient because Team CSI proposed an approach that was similar to the incumbent contract. Protest at 51-52; Comments & Supp. Protest at 25. As noted above, the PWS for the incumbent effort includes approximately half as many cybersecurity subtasks as the PWS for the protested task order.[15] COS/MOL at 39. Additionally, the agency explains that the new PWS features revamped requirements, including implementing a zero trust architecture and an updated cloud architecture. COS/MOL at 40; AR, Tab 10, TEB Chair Decl. at 14‑15. DISA states that implementing a zero trust architecture “requires a massive re-organization of enterprise permissions” and that the initiative will require “significantly more manpower.” AR, Tab 10, TEB Chair Decl. at 14. On this record, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s conclusion that the protester’s proposed management and staffing approach was insufficient and reasonably reduced DISA’s confidence in Team CSI’s ability to meet the expanded requirements. To the extent the protester disagrees and contends that it could perform the requirements with its proposed staffing, we find such an argument to be disagreement with DISA’s reasoned judgment, which does not constitute a basis to sustain the protest. Octo Consulting Grp., supra.

Past Performance Evaluation

Team CSI argues that DISA unreasonably assigned AccelGov’s proposal a rating of satisfactory confidence under the past performance factor when AccelGov submitted, at most, one relevant past performance reference. Comments & Supp. Protest at 38-40; Supp. Comments at 8-14. The agency responds that it reasonably determined that all three past performance references the firm submitted were relevant, and that the satisfactory confidence rating was appropriate.[16] Supp. MOL at 7-10.

An agency’s evaluation of past performance, including its consideration of the relevance, scope, and significance of an offeror’s performance history, is a matter of agency discretion that we will not disturb unless the agency’s assessments are unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, or undocumented. MES Simulation & Training Corp., B-416210, B-416210.2, July 10, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 261 at 9. The evaluation of past performance, by its very nature, is subjective, and we will not substitute our judgment for reasonably based evaluation ratings. Id.

The RFP provided that DISA would assign past performance references a rating of relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant, and it stated: “Relevant performance may include efforts in a variety of sizes, disciplines, and technical complexities.” RFP at 9; RFP attach. 7, Evaluation Tables at 1. Additionally, the RFP stated that past performance projects should demonstrate experience with as many of the PWS task areas as possible, and it provided a list of six examples of similar efforts.[17] RFP at 9-10. Team CSI alleges that two of the awardee’s past performance projects did not satisfy the relevancy criteria.

As an example, we discuss AccelGov’s third past performance project, a subcontract performed by Agovx (the managing member of the joint venture), supporting the healthcare integrated general ledger accounting system of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. AR, Tab 13a, AccelGov Past Performance Proposal at 7-9. The evaluators reviewed AccelGov’s proposal and found that the project demonstrated experience in essentially all of the PWS task areas.[18] AR, Tab 13b, AccelGov Past Performance Evaluation at 6-7. The evaluators also compared the referenced subcontract’s scope of work with the list of six similar efforts in the RFP and found that the subcontract demonstrated experience with five of the six similar efforts. Id. at 7. DISA determined that AccelGov’s third past performance project was similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the RFP, and it rated the project as relevant. Id.

The protester contends that the dollar value of the subcontract, as well as “Agovx’s subordinate role” as a subcontractor made AccelGov’s third past performance project “a complete mismatch” to the role Agovx would have in task order performance--performing 51 percent of the task order. Supp. Comments at 11. The protester complains that the reference should have been rated as not relevant.

Based on our review, we find nothing unreasonable regarding DISA’s evaluation. As noted previously, the RFP established that past performance projects in a variety of sizes, disciplines, and complexities could be considered relevant, and past performance projects should demonstrate experience with as many of the PWS task areas and example efforts as possible. RFP at 9. Here, Team CSI does not dispute that AccelGov’s third past performance project demonstrated experience with all PWS task areas and five of the RFP’s six example efforts. Instead, the protester focuses on the dollar value of the subcontract ($26 million) versus the value of the prime contract (more than $450 million), and Agovx’s role as a subcontractor. The protester asserts: “Performing as a subcontractor responsible for workshare percentages in the single digits cannot be considered to have any of the scope or magnitude of the responsibilities for which Agovx is proposed.” Comments & Supp. Protest at 42.

However, as noted above, the RFP specifically provided that projects of a variety of sizes could be considered relevant and to the extent the protester challenges the agency’s relevance determination by comparing Agovx’s subcontract to the total value of the underlying prime contract, this is not the relevant basis of comparison because the agency was not awarding a $450 million dollar contract here. Rather, the relevant comparison is the value of Agovx’s subcontract of $26 million as compared to the $45 million value of the contract awarded to AccelGov. Additionally, to the extent Team CSI maintains that the agency’s evaluation was improper because the agency did not discount the relevance of the project based on Agovx’s role a subcontractor, the RFP did not provide that subcontracts would be deemed less relevant, and the protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. See Virgo Med. Servs., Inc., B-420462.3, B-420462.4, Aug. 5, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 208 at 7-8. The protest of the awardee’s past performance evaluation is denied.

Small Business Status

The protester complains that AccelGov is not a small business, and because this was allegedly evident from the firm’s proposal, DISA should have referred AccelGov to the SBA for a size status determination. Protest at 65. The protester elaborates that because AccelGov received its first contract award on July 14, 2021, and it did not receive the ENCORE III contract until more than two years later, under SBA’s regulations, the joint venture members are affiliated, other-than-small, and ineligible for award.[19] Id. at 65-67 (citing 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)). The protester claims that AccelGov’s ineligibility for award should have been obvious to the agency based on the firm’s past performance references and the date of the ENCORE III contract. Id. at 66‑67.

Ultimately, whether AccelGov qualifies as a small business is a matter reserved exclusively for the SBA. See FAR 19.307; 13 C.F.R 121.1002; Superior Optical Labs, Inc., B-418618, B-418618.2, July 7, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 229 at 7. Because the SBA, and not our Office, is the designated authority for determining whether a firm is an eligible small business concern, we generally will dismiss a protest challenging a firm’s small business or socio-economic status. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(1); see e.g., DynaLantic Corp., B-402326, Mar. 15, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 103 at 5 (“[T]he SBA, not our Office, has conclusive authority to determine the size status of an offeror for federal procurement purposes”).

A limited exception applies, however, when a protester argues, as Team CSI does here, that the awardee’s offer shows on its face that it is not eligible for award as a small business. In such instances, we will review the reasonableness of the contracting officer’s decision not to refer the matter to the SBA. Superior Optical Labs, supra.

To the extent the protester seeks to invoke this limited exception, its efforts are misplaced. Here, Team CSI’s allegation that it should have been apparent to DISA that AccelGov was other-than-small and ineligible for award is premised on the notion that it was obvious from AccelGov’s proposal that the firm received the ENCORE III contract more than two years after its first contract award. Protest at 65-67. The protester claims that the ENCORE III contract information AccelGov included in its proposal, along with its past performance references, should have telegraphed this fact to DISA. Id.

The problem with the protester’s argument is that it finds no support in the record. Here, the protester has not shown that anything on the face of AccelGov’s proposal would have called into question its small business status. For one, AccelGov did not provide the date that it received the ENCORE III contract in its proposal.[20] AR, Tab 3a, AccelGov Proposal Coversheet at 1. Furthermore, AccelGov did not include any contracts performed by the joint venture as past performance projects. AR, Tab 13a, AccelGov Past Performance Proposal at 1, 4, and 7. As such, contrary to the protester’s allegations, it was not evident from AccelGov’s proposal when the joint venture had been awarded its first contract. Accordingly, we dismiss this protest ground because, as stated above, our Office does not consider challenges to a firm’s small business size status.[21] See Superior Optical Labs, supra at 8 (dismissing protester’s argument that the agency unreasonably failed to refer awardee to the SBA for a size determination where the awardee’s proposal did not support the protester’s allegations).

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

 

---