Truston Technologies, Inc.

B-414617 Jul 28, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Truston Technologies, Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to HALO Maritime Defense Systems, of Newton, New Hampshire, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-17-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for a waterside security barrier (WSB). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Truston Technologies, Inc. File:  B-414617 Date:  July 28, 2017 Eric C. Jacobs, for the protester. Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., Williams Mullen, for HALO Maritime Defense Systems, the intervenor. Raymond P. Oldach, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Truston Technologies, Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to HALO Maritime Defense Systems, of Newton, New Hampshire, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-17-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for a waterside security barrier (WSB).  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND  The RFP, set-aside for small businesses, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract for one year, with a 1-year option, to the firm with the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable proposal for the second generation of WSBs, termed the Type II WSB.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at 20.  An attachment to the RFP identified a total of 31 technical attributes for WSBs.  See RFP, Attach. 1, Type II WSB Technical Attributes.  The RFP identified a subset of 12 attributes as “minimum technical requirements”; a rating of unacceptable on any one of those 12 technical attributes could result in a proposal being evaluated as technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award.  Id. at 19-20. The RFP advised that the “burden is solely on the offeror to provide supporting documentation (e.g. brochures, catalogs, test results, or modeling and simulation results) demonstrating how these minimum technical requirements are met.”  Id. at 19.  The RFP further required that the “offeror shall provide enough supporting documentation with its proposal for the Government’s technical evaluation team to make an evaluation determination on whether the minimum technical requirements are met.”  Id. at 19-20.  There was no page limitation on the supporting documentation an offeror could provide.  RFP at 17.  The agency evaluated three proposals, including the awardee’s and the protester’s.  AR, Tab 3, Technical Evaluation Report (TER), at 1.  The agency evaluated HALO’s proposal as technically acceptable.  Id. at 16.  The agency evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable under the following four technical attributes: Technical Attribute No. Requirement Threshold 7 The waterside security barrier system shall be designed to provide the following delay times for the specified threats (excluding the use of explosives): ≥ 5 min 15 Under maximum normal operating opening/closing conditions, opening and closing of the waterside security barrier shall be: Fully Automated (see note 3) 16 The mean time to fully open/close the waterside security barrier gate under normal operating conditions shall be: ≤30 min 17 The waterside security barrier gate shall be designed with a back-up mode that allows the gate to be adequately opened/closed under the maximum normal and the maximum emergency operating design conditions regardless of current system status, without sustaining permanent damage. ≤30 min Id.