Mistral Inc.

B-411291.4 Feb 29, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mistral Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Tactical Micro, Inc., of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP1012-R-0054, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to acquire new, non-developmental mobile video surveillance systems (MVSS). Mistral asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal. 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:  Mistral Inc. File:  B-411291.4 Date:  February 29, 2016 David W. Lease, Esq., Smith, Lease & Goldstein, LLC, for the protester. Nicole L. Carter, Esq., and Theodore P. Watson, Esq., Watson & Associates, LLC, for Tactical Micro, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew K. Lieberman, Esq., Stephen C. Edinger, Esq., and Jodi L. Silcox, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation factors, and adequately documented. DECISION Mistral Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Tactical Micro, Inc., of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP1012-R-0054, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to acquire new, non-developmental mobile video surveillance systems (MVSS).[1]  Mistral asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 30, 2013 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price delivery/task orders for a base year with four 1-year options.  RFP amend. 4 at 23, 33.  The RFP established that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff process, considering three factors (technical, past performance, and price).  The technical factor was slightly more important than the past performance factor and, when combined, the technical and past performance factors were approximately equal to price.  Id. Under the technical factor, the RFP identified three equally-weighted subfactors:  (1) operational utility and system capability; (2) system sustainment; and (3) management.  Id. at 103.  As relevant to the protest, under the operational utility and system capability subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the offerors’ proposed MVSS to determine the “degree to which the proposed system and its design . . . supports the Border Patrol mission elements described in the SOW of detecting, tracking, identifying and classifying [items of interests].”  Id. at 105.  The agency would also evaluate the degree to which the proposed MVSS “meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the Government MVSS Functional Requirements Matrix (FRM) and Environmental Requirements Matrix (ERM),” including any additional “capabilities beyond the Government’s FRM and ERM.”  Id. 105-106.  The RFP provided that the agency would assign adjectival ratings to the offerors’ proposals under each evaluation factor and subfactor, and included definitions for each rating.  Under the technical factor, the RFP indicated that the agency would identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of each offeror’s proposal.[2]  Id. at 104.  The ratings for the technical factor were superior, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory, reflecting the degree to which the offeror’s technical approach conformed to the requirements of the SOW, FRM, and ERM associated with this factor and subfactors.[3] As it relates to the protest, offerors were required to substantiate all MVSS performance claims and other relevant characteristics.  Offerors were informed that the agency would evaluate the substantiating evidence furnished in offerors’ proposals.  Id. at 88, 91, 105. Ten offerors submitted proposals by the June 13, 2013 closing date, including Mistral and Tactical Micro.  RFP amend.