Delta Risk, LLC

B-416420 Aug 24, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Delta Risk, LLC, a small business concern of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and the issuance of three task orders to G2, Inc., a small business concern of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-17-RP-0007, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for cybersecurity research, development, and implementation services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, resulting in its improper exclusion from the competitive range. The protester also argues that G2 is affected by an incurable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that G2's pricing is unbalanced and unreasonable. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  Delta Risk, LLC File:  B-416420 Date:  August 24, 2018 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., and Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Lauren J. Horneffer, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for G2, Inc., the intervenor. Jonathan Baker, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and its decision to exclude the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the record shows that the decision was reasonable, and there is no evidence that the protester was prejudiced by any alleged evaluation errors. 2.  Protest alleging that the establishment of the competitive range was improper is denied where the solicitation expressly provided that the agency reserved the right to initiate discussions if necessary. 3.  Protest challenging the scope of the agency’s corrective action is dismissed as untimely where the protester waited to file its protest until after the completion of the corrective action. 4.  Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester fails to make the threshold showing that one or more of the awardee’s prices was overstated. 5.  Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unrealistically low is dismissed where the protester fails to allege that the solicitation provided for a price realism evaluation. DECISION Delta Risk, LLC, a small business concern of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and the issuance of three task orders to G2, Inc., a small business concern of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SB1341-17-RP-0007, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for cybersecurity research, development, and implementation services.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, resulting in its improper exclusion from the competitive range.  The protester also argues that G2 is affected by an incurable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that G2’s pricing is unbalanced and unreasonable.  We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 16, 2017, as a set-aside for small business concerns.  The solicitation sought proposals to provide information security and cybersecurity services.  RFP at 29.  The primary objective of the procurement is to serve the consulting, engineering, research, outreach, and development needs of the NIST Information Technology Laboratory’s Computer Security Division.  Id. at 30.  The solicitation contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts consisting of a base year, followed by four 12-month options.  RFP at 33.  Despite a stated preference for multiple awards, the RFP nevertheless provided that “the Government reserves the right to make a single award if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government after evaluating proposals.”  Id. at 41, 109.  Orders issued under the contract would be either fixed-price or labor hour type orders, or a hybrid of both, and would be issued to a single contractor only.  Id. at 29, 41, 113.    The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and three non-price evaluation factors:  (1) technical approach, (2) management approach, and (3) past performance.[1]  RFP at 109.  The RFP made clear that the agency would evaluate proposals for the award of the base contract, as well as for the first eight task orders.  Id. at 109-113.