TITLE: B-298682.2, Global Solutions Network, Inc., December 10, 2007
BNUMBER: B-298682.2
DATE: December 10, 2007
*************************************************************
B-298682.2, Global Solutions Network, Inc., December 10, 2007

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the
   decision in its entirety.


   Decision

   Matter of: Global Solutions Network, Inc.

   File: B-298682.2

   Date: December 10, 2007

   Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, P.L.C., for the
   protester.

   Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Accurate Conceptions,
   LLC, an intervenor.

   Lt. Col. David P. Harney, and Peter F. Pontzer, Esq., Department of the
   Army, for the agency.

   Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest alleging that a solicitation does not accurately reflect the
   agency's needs is denied where the agency disagrees with the protester's
   contention, and, while acknowledging certain growth in the agency's
   workload, explains that the growth will be handled by using agency
   employees to perform some of the additional work, and by increasing
   reliance on automation.

   DECISION

   Global Solutions Network, Inc. (GSN), a small business, protests the
   conduct of a procurement by the Department of the Army under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-06-R-0033 for task order management and
   financial support for the "HRsolutions" program office. GSN argues that
   the Army's needs have changed significantly since the submission of
   proposals, and therefore the RFP, and the proposals submitted, no longer
   accurately reflect the Army's needs.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   The Army issued the RFP on July 29, 2006, as a set-aside for historically
   underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses, seeking
   fixed-price proposals to "provide on a daily basis all personnel,
   equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal
   services necessary to perform Task Order Management and Financial support"
   to the HRSolutions program office. RFP at 3. Prices were to be submitted
   for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. The RFP also
   provides for the reimbursement of other direct costs (described as
   including "supplies not otherwise provided"), and travel (described as
   covering "long distance travel for approved business meetings, conference
   support, and marketing calls"), up to specified annual ceiling amounts.
   RFP at 5-6.

   The contracting officer explains that the HRSolutions program office is
   responsible for managing 12 high-dollar-value
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts that support Army human
   resources functions in the areas of personnel services, studies and
   analyses, recruiting and retention, and administrative functions. The
   contractor will be responsible for following up on marketing leads and
   inquiries, assisting in the preparation of performance work statements and
   independent government cost estimates, preparing funding documents,
   conducting task order competitions, and recommending selection among
   vendors. The contractor will also provide other routine business planning,
   financial management, and related business support. CO Statement at 1.

   GSN explains that since offerors were to provide fixed-price proposals,
   the workload of the HRSolutions program office would affect the prices
   offered. The RFP provided offerors a government estimate, showing eight
   full time equivalent employees, divided among five labor categories, and
   an annual workload of 15,360 hours. RFP at 83. However, the RFP also
   indicated elsewhere that the level and mix of staffing was "expected to
   change from time to time to reflect changing goals and the customer base,"
   and, at another point, that "[s]ince the program is entering a period of
   rapid growth, past metrics will probably not be a reflection of the
   future." RFP at 47, 58. The performance work statement further specified
   that the contractor would be evaluated on its success in "develop[ing] new
   business for the program of no less than 10 percent a year." RFP at 62.

   GSN argues that since submission of its final proposal revision dated May
   7, 2007, the Army has developed revised projections showing that the
   HRSolutions program office will handle an even larger workload than
   indicated by the RFP, and thus the RFP no longer accurately represents the
   Army's needs. GSN bases its argument on projections in an update to the
   official HRSolutions business plan, dated July 31. Protest at 12-14.

   The Army responds that it has carefully considered the workload, and
   concludes that the RFP continues to reflect the Army's needs. With respect
   to the increased workload projections (which the Army emphasizes are
   simply estimates), the Army responds that it is taking actions to
   "accommodate this growth without increasing our reliance on contractors,"
   including increasing Army staffing such that agency employees perform some
   of the work, and automating certain functions performed by the protester
   under its incumbent contract. Agency Report, Tab 3, Declaration of Army
   Program Manager, at 3-4.

   Where an agency's requirements change materially after a solicitation has
   been issued, it must issue an amendment notifying offerors of the change
   and affording them an opportunity to respond. Federal Acquisition
   Regulation sect. 15.206(a); Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., et al.,
   B-295526 et al., Mar. 16, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 45 at 13; Symetrics Indus.,
   Inc., B-274246.3 et al., Aug. 20, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 59 at 6. This rule
   applies even after the submission of final proposal revisions, up until
   the time of award. Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. et al., supra;
   Digital Techs., Inc., B-291657.3, Nov. 18, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 235 at 3;
   NV Servs., B-284119.2, Feb. 25, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 64 at 17. Amending
   the solicitation provides offerors an opportunity to submit revised
   proposals on a common basis that reflects the agency's actual needs.
   Multimax, Inc., et al. B-298249.6, et al., Oct. 24, 2006, 2006 CPD para.
   165 at 6.

   Here, in response to the protester's assertion that the RFP no longer
   reflects the Army's workload, the program manager reviewed the issue and
   concluded that the RFP continues to accurately reflect the Army's need for
   contractor support in this area. GSN has not shown a basis to question the
   Army's judgment in this respect. While GSN disputes the program manager's
   assertion that agency employees will be used to address aspects of the
   workload, GSN's contention is, essentially, that government staff recently
   added to the HRSolutions program office (where GSN performs services under
   its incumbent contract) have not been used for this purpose in the past.
   Declaration of GSN Contract Manager at 2. The agency's actions in
   administering GSN's incumbent contract does not bind the Army's future
   actions, and does not establish that the agency will fail to address the
   upcoming contract in the manner explained in response to this protest. In
   short, the Army has provided a reasonable basis for its conclusion that
   the RFP continues to reflect its needs.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] GSN filed this protest on September 24, 2007, to challenge an award to
   Accurate Conceptions. Shortly after the protest was filed, the Army
   initiated a reevaluation of the proposals, which rendered the challenge to
   the evaluation of proposals and award academic; we therefore dismissed
   those grounds of protest. The remaining contention--that the agency's
   needs have changed since the RFP was first issued--was not rendered
   academic as a result of the corrective action. Accordingly, this decision
   addresses the remaining issue in GSN's protest.