Nexagen Networks, Inc.

B-411209.7 Jun 20, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Nexagen Networks, Inc. (Nexagen), of Aberdeen, Maryland, challenges the terms of task order request (TOR) SSES-R-2057, issued by the Department of the Army for certain information technology services. Nexagen argues that the solicitation's requirements for experience with Oracle Endeca Information Discovery (OEID) is unduly restrictive of competition and reflects bias in favor of the incumbent contractor. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Nexagen Networks, Inc. File:  B-411209.7 Date:  June 20, 2016 Rajesh Parikh, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation requirements as unduly restrictive and reflecting bias in favor of the incumbent contractor is denied where the record supports the agency’s position that the requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. DECISION Nexagen Networks, Inc. (Nexagen), of Aberdeen, Maryland, challenges the terms of task order request (TOR) SSES-R-2057, issued by the Department of the Army for certain information technology services.  Nexagen argues that the solicitation’s requirements for experience with Oracle Endeca Information Discovery (OEID) is unduly restrictive of competition and reflects bias in favor of the incumbent contractor.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on February 12, 2016, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16 to firms that had been awarded a Systems and Software Engineering Support Next Generation (SSES Nexgen) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract[1] for data strategy, services, and software support.[2]  TOR at 1.  The TOR contemplated the issuance of a single, cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, with a one-year base period and one surge option.  TOR at 1, 15.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering the following factors:  technical/risk factor and cost/price.  Id. at 13, 15.  Proposals were to be submitted as separate technical and cost/price volumes.  Id. at 5.  The technical volume was to include four chapters:  technical approach, technical proficiency, management plan, and proposed level of effort.  Id. at 5-7.  The solicitation stated that the technical/risk factor was significantly more important than cost/price.  Id. at 13. As relevant here, in the technical proficiency chapter of the technical volume, offerors were instructed to provide two examples of “software engineering projects where either the [o]fferor or its teaming partner/subcontractor used [OEID] or equivalent in the commercial or [g]overnment market.”  Id. at 6.  Offerors were required to submit a description of the project and explain “why any similar technology submitted is relevant to [OEID].”  Id.  The solicitation stated that the agency would “evaluate the two (2) projects that used [OEID] or equivalent to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the offeror has an understanding of [OEID] or equivalent and its ability to utilize the platform or equivalent platform in performance of this contract.”  Id. at 13.  Prior to the due date for task order proposals, Nexagen filed an agency-level protest arguing that as the TOR was written, the only vendor capable of satisfying the agency’s requirements was the incumbent contractor.  See Agency Report (AR), Tab 2A, Agency-Level Protest.  Nexagen raised four protest grounds, asserting that the agency should revise its requirements, evaluation factors, and basis for award.  See id. at 4-7.  Nexagen also contended that the agency failed to allow sufficient time to respond to the TOR and post the TOR on FedBizOpps, the official government-wide point of entry.  See id.