TCG, Inc.

B-417610,B-417610.2 Sep 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TCG, Inc., a small business located in Washington, DC, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business located in McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. C-56899, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for support services for the modernization of the Spectrum XXI (SXXI) system. The protester argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal, and failed to evaluate the awardee's price reasonably, resulting in a flawed source selection determination. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest 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:  TCG, Inc. File:  B-417610; B-417610.2 Date:  September 3, 2019 Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Katherine A. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Laurel Hockey, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, the intervenor. Travis L. Vaughan, Esq., and Aubri Dubose, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest asserting latent ambiguities in the solicitation is dismissed as untimely where the protester could have raised this protest ground in its initial protest filing, but failed to do so. 2.  Protest challenging price reasonableness determination is denied where the agency reasonably documented its conclusion that the awardee’s price, while higher than the agency’s internal cost estimates, was fair and reasonable. DECISION TCG, Inc., a small business located in Washington, DC, protests the issuance of a task order to ValidaTek-CITI, LLC, a small business located in McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. C-56899, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for support services for the modernization of the Spectrum XXI (SXXI) system.  The protester argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal, and failed to evaluate the awardee’s price reasonably, resulting in a flawed source selection determination. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on November 20, 2018, under the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 Small Business (CIO-SP3 SB) governmentwide acquisition contract.  The solicitation sought support services for the evolution of the current SXXI technology and software architecture into a modernized SXXI (MSXXI) system.  SXXI is a mission-critical national security system used for strategic and tactical operations by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, along with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and foreign allies.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 0061. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-incentive-fee/fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 0049.  The solicitation provided for a best-value tradeoff determination based on three factors:  (1) technical/management approach, (2) past performance, and (3) cost/price.  Id. at 0051-0055.  The technical/management approach factor was more important than the past performance factor, and both factors, when combined, were more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. at 0056.  Proposals rated unacceptable in any area would be ineligible for award and would be excluded from further consideration.  Id. at 0051.  The technical/management factor was to be evaluated using three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical understanding, software development capabilities, and project management.  Id. at 0052-0054.  To be evaluated as acceptable under the technical understanding subfactor, a proposal had to “demonstrate sufficient understanding of the required efforts,” including proposing plans for certain high-level architectures, implementation technologies, and other requirements.  Id. at 0052. To be evaluated as acceptable under the software development capabilities subfactor, the offeror had to meet five standards, including, among other items, “describ[ing] [its] approach for refining all the MSXXI requirements provided in and referenced by the [performance work statement (PWS)] into clear, achievable, verifiable and complete detailed requirements sufficient for coding and testing.”  Id.