Mission Essential Personnel, LLC

B-410431.2 Dec 22, 2014 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights InCadence Strategic Solutions Corp., of Manassas, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-13-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Intelligence and Security Command for global intelligence support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failing to demonstrate access to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: InCadence Strategic Solutions Corp. File: B-410431.2 Date: December 22, 2014 David E. Fletcher, Esq., Thomas O. Mason, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., and Christopher J. Kimball, Esq., Cooley LLP, for the protester. Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., and Craig Smith, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Archimedes Global, Inc., an intervenor. Erica S. Beardsley, Esq., Kyle E. Chadwick, Esq., Capt. Evan C. Williams, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protester’s proposal where proposal failed to provide required documentation demonstrating protester’s access to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. DECISION InCadence Strategic Solutions Corp., of Manassas, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-13-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Intelligence and Security Command for global intelligence support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failing to demonstrate access to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 15, 2013, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite‑delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to offerors in each of two pools (a restricted pool reserved for small businesses and an unrestricted pool) on a best‑value basis. Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation instructed offerors to describe their facilities for storing and safeguarding Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information as follows: Contractor Operated Secure Facility. Proposals shall describe the prime Offeror’s facilities for storing and safeguarding Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) including size, location, and existing equipment, state whether it is properly accredited, meets DD 254 requirements, and is accredited for interfacing with or hosting Government networks. Proposals may also describe teaming partner/subcontractor facilities available for fulfillment of GI [global intelligence] requirements. To be considered, the Offeror’s proposal must identify access to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the time of proposal submission. Offerors shall later “demonstrate access to a SCIF” within two weeks after IDIQ contract award as stated in Paragraph H.2.10.[1] Offerors may identify access to a SCIF through an existing SCIF in the Offeror’s facilities or through another arrangement. Offerors shall include a letter from the Contractor Special Security Officer (CSSO) for the facility they propose to have access to identifying the following information: facility identification number, location, accreditation status, and terms of use for the purposes of the Global Intelligence acquisition. [The agency] will not sponsor or assist offerors or eventual awardees in the establishment of new SCIFs to meet the condition of identifying or demonstrating access to a SCIF. RFP at 444. InCadence, a woman-owned small business, was one of 20 offerors to submit a restricted pool proposal prior to the July 1, 2013 closing date. In its proposal, the protester responded to the above requirement for identification of a SCIF as follows: Team InCadence has made arrangements to have access to a DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] Accredited SCIF, through one of our Team members, [deleted]. InCadence has access to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) conveniently located in the Fort Belvoir, Virginia area. We have included the SCIF accreditation letter (Figure 1-30) from the designated Contractor Special Security Officer for [deleted]. This letter provides the facility identification number, location, accreditation status, and terms of use for the Global Intelligence Acquisition in Section 5.3. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, at 12 (Protester’s Proposal at 189-190). The “SCIF accreditation letter” at Figure 1-30 was an electronic message from DIA acknowledging receipt of a DD Form 254 for [deleted].