Asymmetrik Ltd.

B-416232 Jul 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc., (ESS) a small business of Linthicum, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-16-R-0246, which was issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for presentation and visualization capabilities. ESS challenges the agency's determinations regarding the capacity of the firm's proposed sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs). We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. 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:  Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc. File:  B-416232 Date:  July 12, 2018 James C. Fontana, Esq., Jeffry R. Cook, Esq., William Weisberg, Esq., and L. James D’Agostino, Esq., Dempsey Fontana, PLLC, for the protester. Sean M. Costello, Esq., and Stacy M. Chaffin, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of exclusion from competitive range is untimely where:  (1) protester learned its basis of protest more than 10 days prior to filing its protest; and (2) because its request for a debriefing was filed late, the non-required debriefing did not toll the time for filing a protest. DECISION Exceptional Software Strategies, Inc., (ESS) a small business of Linthicum, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competitive range pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-16-R-0246, which was issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for presentation and visualization capabilities.  ESS challenges the agency’s determinations regarding the capacity of the firm’s proposed sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs). We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on June 30, 2017, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of up to six indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under which the agency would issue cost‑plus-award-fee task orders over a 7-year period of performance, including option periods.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP, at 2, 14, and 19; Tab 16, RFP amend. 3, Final Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC), at 4.  The RFP also provided for the issuance of six initial task orders, with three set aside for small businesses and three to be issued on an unrestricted basis.  PEC at 5-6. Pursuant to the RFP’s statement of work (SOW), the awardee was to provide capabilities for the definition, prototyping, development, and production of visualization and presentation tools.  AR, Tab 14, RFP amend. 3, Final SOW, § 2.0.  Unless otherwise specified, the contractor was to perform the SOW (and task order) tasks in a SCIF or SCIFs.  Id. § 4.13.  Among other requirements, the SOW required that each facility have a conference room with classified connectivity that was able to accommodate a minimum of 20 people.  Id.  In addition, the solicitation documents identified the number of contract full time equivalents (FTEs) who would be supporting the initial task orders at the contractor’s facilities.  As relevant here, the three small business task orders necessitated SCIF seating for a total of 48.5 FTEs, plus one “Hot Desk” workstation for government contract surveillance.  AR, Tab 19, RFP amend. 4, Task Order 1, at 1 (identifying 13 FTEs); Tab 20, RFP amend. 4, Task Order 2, at 1 (15.5 FTEs); Tab 21, RFP amend. 4, Task Order 2, at 1 (20 FTEs); SOW § 4.13.  The RFP described a best-value tradeoff source selection process that involved the consideration of six factors and two evaluation phases.  First, in phase I, NSA would assess offerors’ IDIQ proposals under management, technical, and past performance factors.  PEC at 5.  The management and technical factors included multiple subfactors, each of which was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 6-7.  If the proposal was rated acceptable under the management and technical subfactors and rated higher than “No Confidence” under the past performance factor, NSA would conduct phase II of the evaluation, which focused on offerors’ task order proposals.  Id. at 5.  Under phase II, the agency would assess the offerors’ responses to the three task orders, the offeror’s ability to staff the effort, and cost/price.  Id. at 7.  During this phase, NSA would assign adjectival ratings and calculate a probable cost.  Id. at 5.  The highest ranked offerors for each task order would be awarded an IDIQ contract and the respective task order.  Id.