Network Security Systems Plus, Inc.

B-416755 Dec 06, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Network Security Systems Plus, Inc. (NSSPlus), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to AbleVets, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-18-R-3086, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for cyber security service provider (CSSP) vulnerability analysis and audit support. NSSPlus, the incumbent contractor, challenges the evaluation of technical and cost proposals, and contends that the Navy's best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Network Security Systems Plus, Inc. File:  B-416755 Date:  December 6, 2018 Michael J. Schrier, Esq., and Matthew A. Freeman, Esq., Duane Morris LLP, for the protester. Jeffrey S. Robinette, Esq., Jill K. McDowell, Esq., and Jason P. Matechak, Esq., Impresa Legal Group, for AbleVets, LLC, the intervenor. David White, Esq., and Mark S. Christopher, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency misevaluated the awardee’s proposal is denied, where the agency reasonably considered information within the evaluation team’s personal knowledge concerning dates of performance. 2.  Protest that the agency conducted a faulty cost realism analysis is denied, where the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the awardee’s forward pricing rate proposal and supporting documentation. DECISION Network Security Systems Plus, Inc. (NSSPlus), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to AbleVets, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-18-R-3086, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for cyber security service provider (CSSP) vulnerability analysis and audit support.  NSSPlus, the incumbent contractor, challenges the evaluation of technical and cost proposals, and contends that the Navy’s best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 20, 2018, was set aside for small business holders of the Navy’s Seaport-e multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, and contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee/level-of-effort task order for vulnerability analysis and audit support for the SPAWAR Systems Center Atlantic’s CSSP.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP (conformed), at 2;[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.  The RFP contemplated a 1-year base period of performance and two 1-year option periods.  RFP at 4.  The RFP stated that a task order would be issued to the offeror whose proposal was determined to provide the best value to the government, considering technical capability and cost/price.  Id. at 95.  The RFP advised offerors that the technical capability factor was significantly more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. The RFP stated that the government would evaluate each offeror’s (prime contractor and significant subcontractors) technical capability based on corporate experience.  Id. at 96.  Significant subcontractors were defined as a subcontractor or intercompany work agreement team member that will be performing at least 20 percent of the total proposed labor hours.  Id. at 88.  The RFP instructed offerors to complete ‟reference information sheets” to submit data on at least one but no more than five current, relevant contracts or task orders performed by the offeror and each proposed significant subcontractor.[2]  Id. at 88-89.  The RFP stated that if an offeror failed to include the minimum number of current and relevant contract references for both the prime and each significant subcontractor, the proposal would be rated unacceptable under the technical capability factor, rejected, and ineligible for award.  Id. at 97-98. The technical capability factor consisted of three subfactors:  (1) demonstrating experience developing customized Security Incident and Event Management (SIEM) tools; (2) demonstrating a minimum of two examples of the offeror’s experience supporting collaboration between Department of Defense (DOD) CSSPs and DOD Cyber Red teams (supporting collaboration subfactor),[3] and (3) demonstrating experience developing insider threat programs for DOD CSSP requirements in accordance with DOD Directive 5205.16.  Id.