Mercury Data Systems, Inc.

B-413217 Sep 09, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mercury Data Systems, Inc. (MDS) of Lexington, Kentucky, protests the determination by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not to fund MDS's phase I proposal under DHS's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program request for proposals (RFP) No. HSHQDC-16-R-00012 (RFP), Topic H-SB016.1-004, for research projects to develop autonomous indoor navigation and tracking units for first responders. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Mercury Data Systems, Inc. File:  B-413217 Date:  September 9, 2016 John Taylor for the protester. Robert M. Webb, Esq., for Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to fund proposal under phase I of Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program is denied where the evaluation was consistent with solicitation and there is no evidence that agency acted in bad faith or violated regulations. DECISION Mercury Data Systems, Inc. (MDS) of Lexington, Kentucky, protests the determination by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not to fund MDS’s phase I proposal under DHS’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program[1] request for proposals (RFP) No. HSHQDC-16-R-00012 (RFP), Topic H-SB016.1-004, for research projects to develop autonomous indoor navigation and tracking units for first responders.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DHS issued the RFP seeking proposals for phase I efforts concerning 12 distinct research topic areas.  RFP § 1.1.  The topic at issue here sought proposals to design a wearable system for autonomous indoor navigation and accurate tracking for first responders inside buildings where they might be acting in an emergency situation.  RFP, App. A at 7 (Topic 4).   With respect to phase I, Topic 4 requires the following: Develop a high level concept of operations for a next‐generation indoor tracking capability that includes:  a listing of the various connected wearable sensors and tools targeted, as well as relevant first responder use cases for their application.  The concept of operations for this tracking capability shall include a conceptual, scalable, next‐generation architecture that supports multiple communications networks (e.g., Land Mobile Radio (LMR), Commercial as well as Public Safety Broadband, Satellite, Long‐Term Evolution (LTE) deployable, Wi‐Fi, etc.) connected to existing and theoretical first responder devices.  It shall also embrace a standards-based approach (e.g., Open Geospatial Consortium, BlueTooth, Zigby).  Finally, the concept of operations shall also include a section outlining the technical feasibility and potential first responder operational improvement areas. Id. The RFP contemplated funding awards for phase I to be made on a competitive basis after an evaluation of each proposal “on its own merit and the relevance of the specific concept as it relates to the SBIR topic.”  Id. at § 4.0.  DHS reserved the ability to fund “several or none” of the proposals for any of the topics within the program, and explicitly noted that it was under no obligation to fund any proposal or a specific number of proposals for a given topic.  Id.  Phase I proposals were to be evaluated under the following three criteria, listed in descending order of importance:  technical merit, staff qualifications and capability, potential for commercialization, and cost/price.  Id. at § 4.1. DHS evaluated a total of 34 proposals submitted for Topic 4, including the protester’s.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2.  MDS was informed on April 19, 2016 that its proposal was not among the four that were the most highly-rated and selected for funding.  Agency Report (AR), Tab G, Contracting Officer’s Letter of Apr. 19, 2016.  MDS requested feedback on its proposal, and on May 22, 2016, the agency provided MDS the consensus evaluation report for MDS’s proposal.  AR, Tab F, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Summary.  That report detailed MDS’s summary ratings and documented the strengths and weaknesses assessed by the SSEB.  MDS’s proposal was evaluated as good under the technical merit criterion, very good under staff qualifications and capability, and good under commercialization.  The SSEB found MDS’s price of $99,919 to be acceptable.[2]  Id. The SSEB identified a number of strengths and weaknesses under each evaluation criterion.