FFLPro, LLC

B-411427.2 Sep 22, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights FFLPro, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to VariQ Corporation, of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA14R0093, issued by the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, for cyber training. FFLPro challenges the agency's evaluation of corporate experience, past performance, and property management, and its source selection decision. 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:      FFLPro, LLC File:                B-411427.2 Date:              September 22, 2015 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Michael A. Gordon PLLC; and Jason T. Edwards, Esq., for the protester. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluations of corporate experience, past performance, and property management is denied where the evaluations and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION FFLPro, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to VariQ Corporation, of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA14R0093, issued by the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, for cyber training.  FFLPro challenges the agency’s evaluation of corporate experience, past performance, and property management, and its source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was set aside for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone small businesses, was issued as a combined synopsis/solicitation under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed‑price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year and four option years.  RFP amend. 4 at 3, 6, 22, 27. The training effort solicited here requires a contractor to provide instructors to teach 18 different antiterrorism cyber courses to officials in over 31 partner nations, in subjects such as internet investigations, network security, digital evidence, and forensic examination of software, audio, visual, mobile, and computer devices.  RFP amend. 1, attach. 1, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1-5.  The contractor must also procure specified supplies and equipment needed to teach the courses, including electronic devices and software, and ship them (domestically or internationally) as required by future task orders to be issued under the IDIQ contract.  Id.; RFP amend. 2, attach. 7, Follow Up Questions & Answers (Q&A), § 3, no. 3, at 11; see, e.g., RFP amend. 2, attach. 2, Pricing Sheet, CLIN X013.  The solicitation required two key personnel (program manager and operations manager), as well as 16 lead instructors or staff instructors specifically qualified to teach the various subjects.  RFP amend. 4 at 11; SOW at 5‑37; RFP amend. 1, attach. 4, Q&A, § 1, no. 12, at 2. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, considering the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical compliance (with the RFP’s terms and conditions); corporate experience; past performance; status of property management (hereinafter property management); and price.  RFP amend. 4 at 32.  The non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. The RFP incorporated FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items, and stated that the agency would evaluate the non-price factors using adjectival ratings as specified in the solicitation.  Id. at 29-33.  The RFP stated that in evaluating proposals, the agency reserved the right to use all information available at the time of evaluation.  Id. at 32.  Offerors were to submit separate technical and price proposals, and the RFP provided detailed instructions in that regard under each evaluation factor.  Id.