Tapestry Technologies, Inc.

B-416670.2,B-416670.3 Dec 12, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tapestry Technologies, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to IPKeys Technologies, LLC, a woman-owned small business of Stafford, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 831711853, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for technical assessment and support services. Tapestry challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff decision, and argues that the awardee's quotation included a material misrepresentation. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Tapestry Technologies, Inc. File:  B-416670.2; B-416670.3 Date:  December 12, 2019 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., and Ioana Cristei, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for IPKeys Technologies, LLC, the intervenor. Anthony J. Balestreri, Esq., Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., and Nati Silva, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Michael Grogan, Esq., Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Allegation of material misrepresentation by awardee is denied where the record does not establish that statements in awardee’s proposal constitute material misrepresentations. DECISION Tapestry Technologies, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to IPKeys Technologies, LLC, a woman-owned small business of Stafford, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 831711853, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for technical assessment and support services.  Tapestry challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff decision, and argues that the awardee’s quotation included a material misrepresentation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on July 31, 2018, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4, as a set-aside for woman-owned small businesses holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contracts under schedule 70, Information Technology.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3; AR, Tab 2F, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.[1]  The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed-price task order, with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, for technical assessment and support services to DISA’s Risk Management Executive/Fifth Estate Center.  RFQ at 1.  Specifically, the solicitation required contractor support for cybersecurity assessments and authorization, risk management and information assurance support, and risk adjudication and connection services, across 22 distinct task areas.  PWS at 1, 3-4. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, utilizing two evaluation factors, technical/management approach and price, where technical/management approach was more important than price.  RFQ at 3-6.  The technical/management approach factor was composed of five subfactors, each tied to specific elements within the PWS and a full-time equivalent (FTE) matrix:  (1) system and enclave assessments (PWS § 6.2.1); (2) cloud assessments/validations (PWS § 6.4.2); (3) on-site at the contractor’s facility (PWS § 9.1.3); (4) transition-in (PWS § 6.1.3.2); and (5) FTE matrix.  RFQ at 4-5.  The technical/management approach subfactors were of equal importance.  Id. at 4. As relevant to this protest, under the on-site at the contractor’s facility subfactor, vendors were required to demonstrate their ability to provide a facility within 20 miles of Ft. Meade, Maryland, with both secure and non-secure internet and network access to conduct day-to-day requirements.  PWS at 39.  Additionally, the awardee’s facility was required to have certain meeting space requirements, as outlined in the PWS.  Id.; RFQ at 4.  The agency required vendors to provide access to this facility at the start of contract performance.  See AR, Tab 2H, RFQ Question & Answer, at 12.  The RFQ provided that DISA would assign a color/adjectival rating for each technical/management approach subfactor based on the quotation’s technical/risk rating.[2]  RFQ at 4.  The RFQ provided that price would be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness.  Id.