Energy by Native American Design, LLC

B-416899 Jan 02, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Energy by Native American Design, LLC (ENAD), of Ladoga, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to HSQ Technology, of Hayward, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912P518T0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for a supply contract to replace components of the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system at four master power plants and five remote power plants. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Energy by Native American Design, LLC File:  B-416899 Date:  January 2, 2019 Eric Hoffman, for the protester. Bonnie B. Jagoditz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s quotation as unacceptable is denied where protester failed to provide information required by the solicitation. DECISION Energy by Native American Design, LLC (ENAD), of Ladoga, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to HSQ Technology, of Hayward, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912P518T0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for a supply contract to replace components of the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system at four master power plants and five remote power plants.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on January 11, 2018, provided for the award of a fixed-price supply contract on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price, and the following non-price factors:  performance confidence assessment; technical design; cyber security; and small business participation plan.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 23, RFQ, at 5, 6, 8-9.  The ratings for performance confidence were substantial, satisfactory, limited, none, or unknown.  AR, Tab 20 RFQ, amend. 3, at 25.  The ratings for the remaining non-price factors were outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id.  A quotation was rated unacceptable if it contained one or more deficiencies.  Id.  A quotation that was rated unacceptable under any factor was not eligible for award.  Id. Eight vendors submitted quotations.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1.  Following the initial evaluation, discussions, and the receipt and evaluation of final quotations, ENAD and HSQ were rated as follows:   ENAD HSQ Performance Confidence Assessment Unknown Unknown Technical Design Marginal Good Cyber Security Unacceptable Acceptable Small Business Participation Acceptable Acceptable Price $2,441,302 $2,518,469 COS at 3; AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document, at 6.  The agency selected HSQ for award and after a debriefing, this protest followed.  DISCUSSION ENAD protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation under the technical design and cyber security factors.  Protest at 2-3; Attach. 12, Response to Debriefing.  We find that the agency reasonably rated ENAD’s quotation unacceptable under the cyber security factor.  Since the unacceptable rating makes the quotation ineligible for award, we do not address ENAD’s challenge to the evaluation of its quotation under the technical design factor.  With respect to the cyber security factor, the solicitation required vendors to submit all technical design documentation necessary to demonstrate that:  the network equipment used for communication between plants is on the Defense Information System Agency’s approved products list; the anti-virus software used is approved by the Department of Defense; and the system will use the principle of least privilege for system permissions, file access, user accounts, authentication, and application to application communications.  RFQ at 11.  At a minimum, the offeror’s technical design documentation was required to include a comprehensive descriptive list of network equipment, including cut sheets (specifications), product identification, firmware version, and a “user list with minimum user accounts for maintenance staff, operations, and administrators, including a list of permissions for system and file access, applications, communications and any other critical system components.”  Id. at 11, 12. The solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate the vendor’s proposed SCADA system that incorporates routers with certain features, including a network interface module (NIM).  RFQ amend.