id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 1
400
| source
stringclasses 10
values |
|---|---|---|
4008597a-107a-4a80-8595-e6acf0bf6195 | .5 The Mentor-Protégé Program “is designed to enhance the capabilities of protégé firms by requiring approved mentors to provide business development assistance to protégé firms and to improve the protégé firms' ability to successfully compete for federal contracts.” 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(a) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
42778a9b-1a5b-4266-b818-1a5883344afe | . SBA regulations establish the criteria firms must meet to qualify as either a protégé or mentor under the Mentor-Protégé Program. See 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(c)(1) (outlining the qualifications for protégés); 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(b)(1)–(2) (outlining the qualifications for mentors). Importantly, firms need not individually qualify as small businesses to serve as mentors in the program. See 13 C.F.R | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
40f077ac-789e-4448-803d-1c3c87f4fdd0 | . § 125.9(b) (“Any concern that demonstrates a commitment and the ability to assist small business concerns may act as a mentor and receive benefits as set forth in this section. This includes other than small businesses.”). All mentor- protégé relationships are vetted and approved by the SBA upon formation, and a mentor may only have up to three protégés at one time. See 13 C.F.R. § 125 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
27fbb64c-aacc-4f09-bb57-9712e1771cbf | .9(b)(3)(ii). However, for the SBA to approve a second or third mentor-protégé relationship, “the mentor and proposed additional 4 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), U.S. General Services Administration, https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/regulations/federal-acquisition-regulation-far (last visited Apr | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
aec448fe-693b-43eb-a73e-268b00b72da4 | . 19, 2023) (“The Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) jointly issue the FAR.”). 5 SBA Mentor-Protégé Program, Small Business Administration, https://www.sba.gov/federal- contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/sba-mentor-protege-program (last visited Apr. 19, 2023) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
c1a0bfe1-7100-42ca-952d-619725edd087 | . 5 protégé must demonstrate that the added mentor-protégé relationship will not adversely affect the development of either protégé firm (e.g., the second firm may not be a competitor of the first firm).” 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(b)(3) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
f01f57e6-9d34-4c3b-af6d-d9e6bf5ffa51 | . By allowing mentor firms to assist proteges with “the performance of contracts set aside or reserved for small business,” the Mentor-Protégé Program constitutes an exception to the SBA’s standard rules governing affiliation between firms. 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(a); see 13 C.F.R. § 121.103 (defining “affiliation” and carving out exceptions to affiliation, including § 121 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
9d75f461-c6c9-489c-948b-3314e9686461 | .103(b)(6), which reiterates the exception for mentor-protégé relationships). Traditionally, firms can lose their small business status by affiliating with larger companies. See FAR 52.219-6(a) (noting that whether an entity qualifies as a “small business concern” for set-aside procurements depends on the combined size of the entity itself and any of the entity’s affiliates); 13 C.F.R. § 121 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
58dca32c-8179-4f62-a3ce-d4b3f97f739b | .103 (defining the circumstances that create affiliation between two firms). Through the Mentor-Protégé Program, however, “[a] protégé and mentor may joint venture as a small business for any government prime contract, subcontract or sale, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the procurement or sale.” 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(d)(1) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
702520a9-8308-4982-9fac-b5d7ffde4cfa | . “Such a joint venture may seek any type of small business contract (i.e., small business set-aside, 8(a), HUBZone, SDVO, or WOSB) for which the protégé firm qualifies . . . .” Id. Thus, the size and nature of the protégé firm, rather than the mentor firm, dictate the specific procurements for which a mentor-protégé team can bid. See 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(d) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
3cc53a88-37be-4f50-9a1f-ef7cd2f6fdea | . Importantly here, though a mentor may have more than one protégé, it cannot bid on the same Solicitation multiple times using different protégé relationships. See 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(b)(3)(i) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b34c2cc4-4b33-4427-ab66-34c6a03af382 | . Specifically, the law dictates that “[a] mentor that has more than one protégé cannot submit competing offers in response to a solicitation for a specific procurement through separate joint ventures with different proteges.” 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(b)(3)(i). 6 III | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
5b90950d-945b-4fc0-8c95-1c508ea00769 | . The Polaris Program The Polaris Program is a small business set-aside procurement designed to deliver “customized [IT] services and IT services-based solutions” to qualifying federal agencies. Administrative Record (ECF Nos. 30, 32) (AR) at 1024, 2063, 2553 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
16e60115-8277-4af1-a692-63aa479951e5 | . GSA estimates that procurements for IT services under the Polaris Program will total approximately $6 billion per year and between $60 billion to $100 billion over the lifetime of the program. AR at 2826. Under the Polaris Program, GSA issued multiple Solicitations designed to form groups, or “pools,” of approved, small business IT service-providers. AR at 1024, 2063, 2553 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
2e4a4946-3c37-4f80-9220-4f68b6bda465 | . GSA intends to form these pools by awarding multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to a pre-determined number of awardees who meet the small business qualifications outlined within each Solicitation (i.e., SB, WOSB, SDVOSB, etc.). AR at 1112–14, 2152–54, 2643–45 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
004ad1c0-ea1d-4bc5-b882-b3c6e5099f17 | . These IDIQ contracts will be for a term of five years, with a five-year option to extend the cumulative term of the contract to ten years. AR at 1039, 2078, 2568. Once the pools of eligible IT service providers are formed under each Solicitation, authorized federal agencies interested in procuring IT services may issue individual task orders upon which the IDIQ contract awardees may bid | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
d45e141a-748b-4f16-83a3-81757ef96a21 | . AR at 1024, 2063, 2553. Accordingly, the specific IT services required by an agency are contracted for and performed at the task order level rather than at the IDIQ level under the Solicitations. In this manner, the IDIQ contract serves as a “contract vehicle” connecting qualified small business IT providers and federal agencies through the individual task orders | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
3ec65544-ab51-4bdb-b8b4-33ee9bb74e8d | . See Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ MJARs and Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (ECF No. 37) (Cross-MJAR) at 13–14. The Solicitations permit agencies to issue various forms of task order contracts, including fixed-price, cost- reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts. AR at 1025, 2064, 2554 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
01dd0282-947f-4f6b-88fb-1e03c135c2ae | . 7 However, the Solicitations state a preference for “Firm-Fixed Price Performance-Based Task Order[s].” Id. As noted, Plaintiffs’ protest implicates three solicitations6 under the program: the SB Pool Solicitation (47QTCB22R0001), AR at 1021–1144; the WOSB Pool Solicitation (47QTCB22R003), AR at 2060–2184; and the SDVOSB Pool Solicitation (47QTCB22R0007), AR at 2550–2674 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
968a7c39-92d9-4a67-a54d-455f6107ab95 | . See SHS MJAR at 9; VCH MJAR at 9; Cross-MJAR at 13.7 GSA intends to award 100 IDIQ contracts under the SB Pool Solicitation, 80 IDIQ contracts under the WOSB Pool Solicitation, and 70 IDIQ contracts under the SDVOSB Pool Solicitation. See AR at 1112– 14, 2152–54, 2643–45. Thus, each pool will consist of between 70 and 100 successful offerors. A | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
8a7947cb-3e6e-4dc5-b408-3e6eb99ac6f5 | . Eligible Offerors Under the Polaris Solicitations Since the Polaris Solicitations are for small business set-aside procurements, competition for award under the Solicitations is limited to offerors who qualify as SBs, WOSBs, or SDVOSBs under SBA regulations. AR at 3, 1162, 2201; see FAR 52 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b0c20278-561d-47fc-8e06-1591174eaaed | .219-6 (noting set-asides are procurements for which “[o]ffers are solicited only from small business concerns. . . . [and] [a]ny 6 GSA prepared the Solicitations through an iterative process during which GSA published initial versions of the Solicitations and issued amendments modifying the Solicitations’ terms to respond to industry feedback or other pre-award protests | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
ea0dcc50-043b-43c1-9ea9-7bd73f9c22ce | . In total, GSA issued eight versions of the SB and WOSB Solicitations and three versions of the SDVOSB Solicitation. See generally AR at 11– 2683 (documenting every version of each Solicitation issued) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
fd43f4e6-ba1f-4290-8106-48bf2fb6d834 | . The SDVOSB Solicitation received fewer amendments because GSA first issued the SDVOSB Solicitation on September 15, 2022, after it had initially issued the SB and WOSB Solicitations on March 25, 2022. Compare AR at 11, 1171, with AR at 2202. Accordingly, earlier amendments to the SB and WOSB Solicitations were preemptively incorporated into the initial version of the SDVOSB Solicitation | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
83547dd8-c109-41ec-9fdc-40f1e542e2f7 | . See AR at 2202–2359. GSA issued the final amended versions of the SB and WOSB Solicitations on September 20, 2022, and issued the final amended SDVOSB Solicitation on October 20, 2022. See AR at 1021, 2060, 2550. 7 The fourth Solicitation under the Polaris Program, reserved for HUBZone offerors, is not at issue in this protest. See, e.g., Cross-MJAR at 10 n | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
cd717011-79e7-4ec1-977c-128146357182 | .2 (“The HUBZone solicitation has not been challenged.”). 8 award resulting from [the] solicitation will be made to a small business concern.”). The Solicitations allow SB, WOSB, and SDVOSB offerors to prepare proposals using two different kinds of small business teaming arrangements: (1) prime contractor/subcontractor teaming arrangements, and (2) joint ventures. See AR at 1088, 2127, 2618 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
2295ee90-edda-4414-8c44-75b0237b46ea | . In a prime contractor/subcontractor teaming arrangement, “[a] potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors” for contracts and task orders issued under the Solicitation. AR at 1088, 2127, 2618; see FAR 52 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
ca059a12-0486-4273-b3ad-2f306047fe1a | .207-6 (defining “Small Business Teaming Arrangement” to include when “[a] small business offeror agrees with one or more other small business concerns to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract”); AR at 1083, 2122, 2613 (incorporating FAR 52.207-6 by reference in the Solicitations) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
4c0636c9-a0aa-4a0c-b6e0-d40c35fb0346 | . Alternatively, SB, WOSB, and SDVOSB companies can submit proposals by forming joint venture entities that serve as offerors under the Solicitation. See AR at 1088–89, 2127–28, 2618– 19. This umbrella of offerors includes mentor-protégé JVs, which may also submit proposals as offerors under the Polaris Solicitations. See AR at 1088–89, 2127–28, 2618–19 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
87bcdaf0-5896-4728-9969-c482752e04c6 | . Joint venture entities may likewise serve as prime contractors and team with subcontractors to submit proposals under the Polaris Solicitations. See AR at 1088–89, 2127–28, 2618–19. Generally, “[a] small business concern may participate under multiple proposals (e.g., Offeror, proposed subcontractor, joint venture member).” AR at 1084, 2123, 2614 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
e4c45fde-d197-4dac-a9ce-b2ecfde5eea6 | . This includes mentor-protégé JVs, as “nothing in the [Solicitations] prohibits a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture from submitting a proposal against a solicitation and also participating in the same procurement as a subcontractor for another Prime offeror.” Cross-MJAR at 35 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
23a0c62f-5ab1-433b-a195-271c98d90f1b | . Additionally, nothing in the Solicitations “bars a Mentor, that is a small business and fits within an appropriate set-aside category (e.g., SB, WOSB, SDVOSB) from submitting a proposal that competes directly with a 9 Mentor Protégé Joint Venture in which it is the Mentor.” Id. However, mentor-protégé JVs that share the same mentor may not submit competing proposals under the same Solicitation | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
c7bd4572-0cb2-4584-a967-0c26a0d96aeb | . See Small Business Pool Question and Response Document #4, Question 292 (AR at 890) (citing 13 C.F.R. § 125.9(b)(3)(i)). Thus, the Solicitations prohibit mentor-protégé JVs that share a mentor from being members of the same pool of eligible providers. B | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
306ee932-ddf9-4e31-a00f-37ef4c89272b | . Evaluation of Proposals – Highest Technically Rated Qualifying (HTRQ) Offerors Under the Polaris Solicitations, GSA will award IDIQ contracts to the highest technically rated qualifying (HTRQ) offerors | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
560314d0-6300-46bb-90c2-08b8eb893450 | . See AR at 1112, 2152, 2643; see also Acquisition Plan for Polaris GWAC Program (AR at 2856) (“For Polaris, the best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Qualifying Offerors.”). The evaluation process begins with qualifying offerors (i.e | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
113f2b4b-c5e5-42f0-8d62-aa98902a7ef1 | ., SBs, WOSBs, and SDVOSBs) submitting self-scored proposals using a points scheme derived from scoring tables contained in the Solicitations. AR at 1113, 2153, 2644. Offerors earn points based on how well their proposals meet the Solicitations’ four primary “evaluation factors”: (1) Relevant Experience; (2) Past Performance; (3) Systems, Certifications, and Clearances; and (4) Risk Assessment | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
42aa3f39-0a31-4819-8272-06a0cfee7e00 | . See AR at 1114–18, 2154–58, 2645–49. Offerors can claim a maximum of 95,000 points for their proposals. AR at 1118, 2158, 2649. Additionally, GSA will separately assess each offeror’s Responsibility, evaluated on a pass/fail basis. AR at 1118, 2158, 2649 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
bbe99a5f-c229-4741-9d03-91be04eafbaf | . Once GSA receives all offerors’ proposals, the agency will “rank the proposals in order from highest total claimed score to lowest total claimed score.” AR at 1113–14, 2153–54, 2644– 45. The 100 proposals (or 80 proposals for the WOSB Solicitation, or 70 proposals for the SDVOSB Solicitation) with the highest claimed score are called Preliminary Qualifying Proposals (PQPs) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
31003e19-894c-422a-a725-80b671e6c68e | . AR at 1113, 2153, 2644. GSA verifies the PQPs’ claimed scores by reviewing all 10 supporting documentation submitted by offerors and performing an Acceptability Review8 over the proposals. AR at 1113–14, 2153–54, 2644–45 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
284eba7b-8071-48de-8516-6926b478bc5c | . If any PQP is eliminated from consideration after these review processes, the next highest rated proposal (based on the offeror’s claimed score) will replace the eliminated proposal as a PQP. AR at 1113–14, 2153–54, 2644–45. In other words, the entire list of remaining PQPs shifts up one position | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
58ce1578-83f6-47f9-b003-84f541af0c5d | . Once GSA has verified, through the evaluation and validation process, the point totals claimed by the 100/80/70 highest-scoring offerors, GSA will cease evaluations and award IDIQ contracts to the successful, verified bidders. AR at 1114, 2154, 2645 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
1511ef2d-307b-49f5-90e8-7573c6be191a | . If, after the evaluation process has concluded, multiple offerors have identical scores in the pool’s final position (position 100, 80, or 70, depending on the Solicitation), all offerors tied for the pool’s last spot will receive an award. AR at 1112, 2152, 2643. Thus, if this narrow circumstance occurs, more than 100/80/70 offerors can receive IDIQ contracts under the Solicitations | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
f2332685-e737-4fa9-bf7a-d779fe169141 | . AR at 1112, 2152, 2643.9 i. Evaluation Criteria - Relevant Experience Plaintiffs’ protest places particular scrutiny on the Solicitations’ treatment of the Relevant Experience evaluation factor. See generally SHS MJAR at 26–32; VCH MJAR at 26–32; Plaintiffs SHS’s and VCH’s Consolidated Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ MJARs and Response to Defendant’s Cross-MJAR (ECF No. 38) (Pl. Reply) at 13–21 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
9a75d10d-0a80-4ee2-8398-e993b33f3af3 | . The Relevant Experience evaluation 8 Through the Acceptability Review, GSA ensures that each offeror’s “proposal submission information meets the criteria for the information requested in [the Solicitation] and is current, accurate, and complete.” AR at 1114, 2154, 2645. 9 The Solicitations emphasize the rule for ties only applies to the final position within a pool (i.e | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
5db7673f-6a03-4792-9777-05f2faa086e6 | ., spot 100, 80, or 70, depending on the Solicitation), and not to ties at any other rank. AR at 1112, 2152, 2643. Thus, if ties occur at any other rank in the pool, the tie does not result in two or more offerors holding that same numbered position. AR at 1112, 2152, 2643 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
fb438e13-26f2-4691-a613-04510c1116ba | . For example, if two offerors receive identical verified scores at position 10, one offeror will take the 10th position, and the other offeror will move down to the 11th position. AR at 1112, 2152, 2643. 11 factor is divided into two sub-categories: Primary Relevant Experience Projects and Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects. AR at 1093–1103, 2132–42, 2623–34 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
50d76b0a-cfbc-4531-838c-03ad668c4a46 | . Primary Relevant Experience Projects equal or exceed $250,000 in contract value and involve one of the following services: (1) Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services; (2) Custom Computer Programming Services; (3) Computer Systems Design Services; (4) Computer Facilities Management Services; or (5) Other Computer Related Services. AR at 1095–96, 2134–35, 2625– 26 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
cc9ed080-ff4c-46eb-9dbd-0270429a48b8 | . All offerors must submit a minimum of three and maximum of five Primary Relevant Experience Projects as part of their proposals. See AR at 1094, 2133, 2625. Additionally, the Solicitations evaluate Past Performance “using Projects submitted under [the] Primary Experience Submission.” AR at 1103–05, 2143–45, 2634–35 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
47c41587-7296-41bd-ac8a-935033eca232 | . For each Primary Relevant Experience Project, offerors must submit a Past Performance assessment, the requirements of which are outlined in greater detail in the Solicitations. AR at 1103, 2143, 2634 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
293f2c59-e2bc-4e99-9e45-6f97356649bd | . Offerors can earn a maximum of 56,000 points for their Primary Relevant Experience Projects, making Primary Relevant Experience the evaluation factor that contributes the largest number of points to an offeror’s overall score. See AR at 1116–17, 2156–57, 2647–48 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
a8c3e574-f728-4356-95e0-ea9e85ad893e | . Each Primary Relevant Experience Project gives offerors 4,000 points, contributing a potential total of 20,000 base points to an offeror’s total score. See AR at 1116–17, 2156–57, 2647–48. Offerors can earn the full 56,000 points for Primary Relevant Experience Projects by submitting projects that meet certain specialized criteria. See AR at 1116–17, 2156–57, 2647–48 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
926e467a-b0f5-4750-ac62-b7a635b6669c | . For example, offerors that submit projects with a contract value equal to or greater than $10 million can earn an additional 3,000 points per qualifying Primary Relevant Experience Project. See AR at 1116–17, 2156–57, 2647–48 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
7954a293-e9e1-42ef-9f6e-035ab9facd8d | . Further, offerors can earn additional points for Primary Relevant Experience by submitting (1) projects completed for various government customers; (2) cost-reimbursement 12 projects; (3) task order awards on multiple-award contracts; (4) projects outside the contiguous United States; (5) projects related to cybersecurity experience; and (6) projects demonstrating a breadth of technological | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
eefce8f5-9065-46cb-8814-ddf3fa0e4c74 | experiences | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
6d541ed9-d4bd-445c-9d1a-4afb9fe713bd | . See AR at 1112–18, 2152–58, 2643–49. In addition to the 56,000 possible points earned for Primary Relevant Experience Projects, offerors can earn an additional 20,000 points for Past Performance, which GSA also evaluates based on the Primary Relevant Experience Projects an offeror submits. AR at 1117–18, 2157, 2648 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
008f823c-32ed-46c6-acad-80a7005db73a | . In contrast, Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects have a contract value of $250,000 or greater and involve performance of one of the following technologies: (1) Advanced and Quantum Computing, (2) Artificial Intelligence, (3) Automation Technology, (4) Distributed Ledger Technology, (5) Edge Computing, or (6) Immersive Technology. See AR 1101–02, 2140– 41, 2632 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
a23caeb8-7e67-4d7b-a9a9-7b808725f740 | . Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects target cutting-edge technological fields, and fewer small businesses will have experience in such fields. See Transcript of Oral Argument, dated Feb. 15, 2023 (ECF No. 41) (Oral Arg. Tr | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
22092358-482c-4ddb-9c71-def9fcc02ab8 | .) at 50:1–7 (Defendant’s counsel acknowledging “[t]he emerging technology experiences included past experience with artificial intelligence, edge computing, immersive technology, advanced and quantum computing. . . . A small business, they’re not all going to be [able to] do that”) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
9832d524-e23e-4aa5-a561-748ae037510d | . As such, the submission of Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects is entirely optional under the Solicitations, and an offeror may submit a maximum of three such projects for consideration. See AR at 1100, 2140, 2631. Each submitted Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project contributes 1,000 points to an offeror’s overall score. AR at 1117, 2157, 2648 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
a489095f-a700-495c-9741-05ac7149428a | . Offerors may also earn up to an additional 1,000 points if the submitted Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects demonstrate breadth of experience in emerging technologies. AR at 1117, 2157, 2648. Thus, Emerging 13 Technology Relevant Experience Projects can contribute a maximum of 4,000 points to an offeror’s score. AR at 1117, 2157, 2648 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
6fcef5a2-045a-4c93-ba92-fd01050e1342 | . Generally, Relevant Experience Projects (either Primary Relevant Experience Projects or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Projects) “may be from the Offeror or any proposed subcontractor.” AR at 1090, 2129, 2620; see also 13 C.F.R. § 125.2(g). However, the Solicitations include several provisions qualifying that rule | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
cae9b014-238e-4b9b-a193-da8cb313e32b | . The Solicitations state: “For offers from SBA Mentor-Protégé joint ventures, a minimum of one Primary Relevant Experience Project or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project must be from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture. No more than three Primary Relevant Experience Projects may be provided by the Mentor.”10 AR at 1088, 2127, 2619 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
92d7eff7-5871-4f81-ba7b-a842f90b8747 | . The WOSB and SDVOSB Solicitations likewise include the additional requirement that, for JVs involving WOSB or SDVOSB members, at least one Primary Relevant Experience Project or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project must be from a WOSB or SDVOSB member of the JV, respectively, or from the offering JV itself. See AR at 2127, 2619 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
81c4bb2a-643f-48f3-a37f-2c35718f316e | . Finally, for any WOSB or SDVOSB offerors, including small business teaming arrangements, “a minimum of one Primary Relevant Experience Project or Emerging Technology Relevant Experience Project must be from” a WOSB or SDVOSB, respectively. AR at 2132, 2624 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
e6f30e94-c452-4d26-800a-e33ab00e4e63 | . However, this last requirement may be fulfilled by “the offeror 10 GSA added this provision to the Solicitations in response to a GAO protest filed on March 28, 2022. See AR at 3047–53. The protest criticized a prior version of the Solicitations that allowed all of a mentor-protégé JV’s Relevant Experience requirements to come from the mentor, without any contributions made by the protégé | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
cdd18baf-4443-4e13-bb94-719b6f39e192 | . AR at 3056. The protesting party alleged that the Solicitations violated 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), which requires agencies to “consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture.” AR at 3049. In response, GSA filed a notice of corrective action to address the concerns raised through the protest. AR at 3054–55 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
eea12cae-1c9a-4a73-a615-5479bed2d530 | . The GAO accordingly dismissed the protest as “academic” on April 25, 2022. AR at 3056–57. To remedy the identified issue, GSA amended the Solicitations to incorporate the requirement that either the protégé firm or the mentor-protégé JV must provide at least one Relevant Experience Project for consideration. AR at 167–339; AR at 1327–1499 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
0f2da4bb-0bb9-47c2-8595-cb84abd1aad9 | . 14 itself, a proposed subcontractor, or a member of a joint venture.” AR at 2944; see id. at 2129, 2620. C. Evaluation of Proposals – No Consideration of Price at IDIQ-Level Pursuant to Class Deviation CD-2020-14 Traditionally, agencies must “include cost or price to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor that must be considered in the evaluation of proposals.” 41 U.S.C | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
f0247ec3-f305-46fa-b285-fbc6a2b8779f | . § 3306(c)(1)(B); see also FAR 15.304(c)(1)(i) (“Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection . . . .”). However, the Polaris Solicitations do not include cost or price to the government as an evaluation criterion for awarding the IDIQ contracts. AR at 1112, 2152, 2643. Instead, GSA states it will evaluate cost and price at the individual task order level | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
62852140-695c-4b27-acd7-a4dc42eb1603 | . AR at 1025, 2064, 2554. In making this choice, GSA relied on 41 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(3), which provides an exception for “certain indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity multiple-award contracts . . . for services acquired on an hourly rate.” 41 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(3) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
fab24324-0129-45a0-8cc1-d89b0120632b | . The statute reads as follows: If an executive agency issues a solicitation for one or more contracts for services to be acquired on an hourly rate basis . . . and the executive agency intends to make a contract award to each qualifying offeror and the contract or contracts will feature individually competed task or delivery orders based on hourly rates . . | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
e04cd9d0-ed82-4ebb-885f-d67868ea70ce | . the contracting officer need not consider price as an evaluation factor for contract award; and . . . cost or price to the Federal Government shall be considered in conjunction with the issuance . . . of any task or delivery order under any contract resulting from the solicitation. 41 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(3) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
76684a20-5cd5-4159-82ed-16393b80f9e9 | . Though this statute is binding on federal agencies, the FAR has not yet been updated to incorporate 41 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(3).11 11 In August 2018, the FAR Council opened a case to implement this statutory change into the FAR. See FAR Council Case Number 2018-14 (opened August 22, 2018). The Council’s report on this proposed rule change is due May 24, 2023. Id | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
915702a3-6e58-4447-a96e-fe06654e6e1a | . 15 On August 14, 2020, GSA issued Class Deviation12 CD-2020-14 to informally alter the language of the FAR and adopt the exception found in Section 3306(c)(3). FAR Class Deviation - Enhancing Competition at the Order Level for Certain Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Multiple-Award Contracts (Class Deviation CD-2020-14 or Class Deviation) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
5a5de4a1-475d-4d81-b829-2654ff1798d6 | .13 Class Deviation CD-2020-14 applies to all GSA contracting activities for acquisitions that are “[f]or the award of [IDIQ] multiple-award contracts for services that will be acquired on an hourly rate basis.” Id. . Under the Class Deviation, “[t]o be eligible for consideration [for the application of the 41 U.S.C | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
5f86f45b-aa3c-4648-ab18-96da6fbccd45 | . § 3306(c)(3) exception] by the [Senior Procurement Executive], the predominant amount of the acquisition must be for services that will be acquired on an hourly rate basis.” Id. (emphasis added). The Class Deviation sought to “amend” several FAR provisions, including FAR 4.1005-2(a)(2), 13.106-1, 15.304, 16.5, and 16.601, to reflect the exception in Section 3306(c)(3). Id. | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
7a2fe7a9-960c-4a11-9c18-cd2920025cc0 | . In doing so, GSA made the most extensive changes to FAR Subpart 16.5 “to implement the exception provided by 41 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(3) for certain IDIQ multiple-award contracts.” Id. The Class Deviation amended language for FAR Subpart 16.5 as follows: A contracting officer need not consider price as an evaluation factor for award . . | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b6266d31-c4f0-4a56-af85-72a25e3550e1 | . when all of the following conditions exist— (1) The solicitation is to establish multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for services to be acquired on an hourly rate basis; (2) The solicitation states the Government intends to make award to each qualifying offeror and defines the criteria for what constitutes a qualifying offeror; 12 Deviations are policies, | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
3631e130-2734-4421-b4cc-0dc868edc58f | procedures, solicitation provisions, contract clauses, methods, or practices of conducting acquisitions that are “inconsistent with the FAR | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
91c00ef1-991e-40ae-8eee-49c5c42a01e8 | .” FAR 1.401 (defining “deviation”). “[D]eviations from the FAR may be granted . . . when necessary to meet the specific needs and requirements of each agency.” FAR 1.402. “Class deviations affect more than one contract” and “may be authorized by agency heads or their designees.” FAR 1.404. 13 Acquisition Policy Library & Resources – Class Deviations: CD-2020-14, U.S | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
fc5573f9-05ab-4127-ac61-2c7cfb91b569 | . General Services Administration, https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/acquisition-policy/acquisition- policy-library-resources#ClassDeviations (last visited Feb. 23, 2023) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
c3d91d57-a39d-493d-9047-76445d8e9907 | . 16 (3) The resultant contracts will feature individually competed task or delivery orders based on hourly rates; and (4) Cost or price shall be considered in conjunction with the issuance of any task or delivery order issued under any contract resulting from the solicitation . . . . Class Deviation CD-2020-14 at 5 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
3aa785a9-1ec3-4898-b905-2b05b2be2679 | . On March 1, 2022, GSA’s Senior Contracting Officers for the Polaris Program drafted a memorandum for the Senior Procurement Executive requesting approval to apply Class Deviation CD-2020-14 to the Polaris Solicitations. AR at 2906–13. In their request, the Contracting Officers indicated that application of the Class Deviation would be appropriate for the Polaris Solicitations because, AR at 2907 | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
c9e9e6e1-e21f-4043-b939-36b1c4a2d1be | . In response, the Senior Procurement Executive issued Supplement 2 to Class Deviation CD-2020-14 on March 18, 2022, approving the “use of Class Deviation 2020- 14 authority for awarding labor rates with no stated price on the line item or sub-line item at the contract level for [the] ‘Polaris Program’ of [IDIQ] multiple-award contracts | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
57a73623-16d4-4c33-9073-63d775403d76 | .” Supplement 2 to Class Deviation CD-2020-14 (Supplement 2), AR at 2904. The Senior Procurement Executive further elaborated that Class Deviation CD-2020-14 “allowed for the use of ‘unpriced labor’ categories at the contract level for certain IDIQ multiple-award contracts.” Id | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
169450dd-d764-4a8f-9101-c6ec8c4e57b3 | . Supplement 2 does not, however, include further explanation regarding why the Polaris Solicitations qualify for the Section 3306(c)(3) exception. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The United States Court of Federal Claims maintains jurisdiction over pre-award bid protests pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b0a401fa-1738-4a1c-a993-d887385454e7 | . Section 1491(b)(1) grants the 17 court jurisdiction over protests filed “by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract . . . or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement. . . . without regard to whether suit is instituted before or after the contract is awarded | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
2cd28bea-e9be-4a2c-a875-b408459828d8 | .” See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). An interested party is “an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” CGI Fed. Inc. v. United States, 779 F.3d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2001)) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
faefaf6e-f63f-4e57-8148-7995db8776ad | . The court evaluates bid protests using the same standard of review applied under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to review agency action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) (adopting the standard of review outlined in 5 U.S.C. § 706); see Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Bannum v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005)) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
32f6160c-e173-4280-a839-d9e7259debe5 | . Specifically, the court shall not set aside agency procurement action unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
82064857-217d-48b4-b83e-cfde9f31be3a | . To succeed in a bid protest under this standard, a protestor must demonstrate that either “(1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.” Nat’l Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. United States, 923 F.3d 977, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Weeks Marine, 575 F | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
e67f7284-3cac-4008-9547-864f75fd618a | .3d at 1358); see also Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United Sates, 800 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“In applying [“arbitrary and capricious” review] to bid protests, our task is to determine whether the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis or the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.”) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
06725c07-79b8-4ec6-8409-d603d84ce86d | . The protestor must also demonstrate that any alleged error in the procurement process somehow prejudiced the protesting firm. See, e.g., Am. Relocation 18 Connections, LLC v. United States, 789 F. App’x 221, 226–27 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Bannum, 404 F | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
f8d1c459-96b6-410a-adbf-e5b346545f18 | .3d at 1357–58) (“[W]e must turn to the merits of the party’s claim and determine whether it can prove it was prejudiced based on the record evidence.”); Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351) (“To prevail in a bid protest case, the protestor must show that it was prejudiced by the government's actions.”) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b430154d-b072-456c-819a-a58e996a7fd9 | . “[O]nly a ‘clear and prejudicial’ violation of a procurement statute or regulation warrants relief.” Cent. Ark. Maint., Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting CACI Field Servs., Inc. v. United States, 854 F.2d 464, 466 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
b72392a1-d7ba-47e8-9a58-6b8480ad9d25 | . Courts apply a less stringent prejudice standard to pre-award protests due to the more limited factual landscape involved in such cases. See Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1361–62 (acknowledging “there is no factual foundation for a ‘but for’ prejudice analysis” in the context of a pre-award protest of a solicitation); cf. Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1348– 49 (Fed. Cir | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
119056ea-f526-4dda-8b10-954b0aececf7 | . 2013) (applying the “substantial chance” test for prejudice where there was “an adequate factual predicate to ascertain under the traditional ‘substantial chance’ standard whether [the protestor] was prejudiced”) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
9bbcc523-8d1e-473a-8de4-370564dbeb5d | . Whereas a post-award protestor must demonstrate it had a “substantial chance” of receiving the award absent the alleged procurement error, a pre-award protestor need only allege a “non-trivial competitive injury which can be addressed by judicial relief” to show prejudice. Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1359–63.14 The U.S | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
95def40e-6c4b-4591-bbaf-4cc7052b8c14 | . Court of Appeals for 14 In Weeks Marine, the Federal Circuit ascribed the “non-trivial competitive injury” standard for prejudice within the context of standing to file a pre-award bid protest. See Weeks Marine, 575 F | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
926ae917-f5af-4b1d-b670-3adc887a6832 | .3d 1359–63 (“[W]e conclude that in a pre-award protest such as the one before us, [a] prospective bidder or offeror must establish ‘a non-trivial competitive injury which can be redressed by judicial relief’ to meet the standing requirement of § 1491(b)(1).”) | Sh_Synergy,_LLC_2023-04-28.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.