AlphaSix Corporation

B-412456 Feb 19, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AlphaSix Corporation, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) award of a contract to eKCG, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJD-15-R-0004, for operation and maintenance of an information security (INFOSEC) program. The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and resulting 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:  AlphaSix Corporation File:  B-412456 Date:  February 19, 2016 Carol L. O’Riordan, Esq., Anthony J. Marchese, Esq., and Taimur Rabbani, Esq., O’Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Selena Brady, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for eKCG, LLC, the intervenor. James E. Hicks, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly assigned protester’s proposal only a “good” rating, rather than the awardee’s “outstanding” rating, under technical capabilities evaluation factor is denied where protest is based only on the number of the protester’s evaluated strengths and subfactor ratings, while the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposal was superior under the evaluation factor was reasonably based on a qualitative assessment of the competing proposals’ characteristics. DECISION AlphaSix Corporation, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) award of a contract to eKCG, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJD-15-R-0004, for operation and maintenance of an information security (INFOSEC) program.  The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous considering five evaluation factors:  technical capabilities, including subfactors (in descending order of importance) for cybersecurity management, information assurance, information security governance, information security program management, and communications security; personnel qualifications; corporate capabilities; past performance; and cost/price.  RFP at M-2, M-5.  The RFP further advised that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  RFP at M-2. Eleven proposals were submitted in response to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4.  After the evaluation of initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range of three offerors (eKCG, AlphaSix, and a third offeror), conducted discussions, and requested final revised proposals.  The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) evaluated the final revised proposals as follows:    eKCG AlphaSix 3rd Offeror Technical Capabilities Outstanding Good Good Personnel Qualifications Outstanding Good Good Corporate Capabilities Outstanding Outstanding Good Past Performance Substantial Confidence/Very Relevant Satisfactory Confidence/Somewhat Relevant Substantial Confidence/Very Relevant Overall Outstanding Good Good Cost/Price $67,018,573 $59,613,046 $58,767,573 Agency Report (AR), SEB Addendum, at 5. In her source selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) identified 18 technical advantages (discriminators) offered by eKCG’s proposal (including 15 with respect to technical capabilities and 3 with respect to personnel qualifications) but not AlphaSix’s, and 18 discriminators relative to the third offeror’s proposal.  AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Authority Decision Memorandum (SSADM), at 6-10.  The SSA concluded that: it is clear that eKCG’s top-rated and top-ranked technical proposal is the best value to the government.  A side-by-side comparison of eKCG’s technical and price proposals with that of the other offerors shows that none of the other offerors are able to demonstrate the combination of technical superiority and competitive pricing that rises to the level of eKCG’s proposal.  As this requirement encompasses leading edge information security in a rapidly changing security environment, it is to the government’s advantage to award to the offeror with the highest technical capability.  In this case, eKCG exhibited this technical acumen at a total proposed price that allows the government to procure the best “bang for the buck,” as compared to the other offerors who submitted proposals. Id.