Highlight Technologies, LLC

B-417620 Sep 06, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Highlight Technologies, LLC (Highlight) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Decision Vectors, LLC (ADV), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-17-R-Z001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for security consulting services. Highlight challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal, and of ADV's cost proposal. 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:  Highlight Technologies, LLC File:  B‑417620 Date:  September 6, 2019 Richard D. Kelley, Esq., Jonathan Harrison, Esq., and Samuel J. Banks, Esq., Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Scott M. Dinner, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for Advanced Decision Vectors, LLC, the intervenor. Theresa S. Keenan, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that the agency failed to properly evaluate the awardee’s cost proposal is denied where the record shows that agency’s cost realism assessment was reasonable, and conducted in accordance with the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation reasonably determined that the protester did not explain how it would leverage its prior experience to successfully perform the solicitation requirements. DECISION Highlight Technologies, LLC (Highlight) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Decision Vectors, LLC (ADV), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189‑17‑R‑Z001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for security consulting services.  Highlight challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal, and of ADV’s cost proposal. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On October 12, 2016, the Navy issued the RFP, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 6.[1]  The solicitation contemplated award of a single cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee, level‑of‑effort contract with a 1‑year base period and three 1‑year options to provide administrative and technical Special Access Program (SAP) security services for the Joint Staff (JS), Special Access Program Central Office (SAPCO).[2]  See RFP at 10‑11, 83‑84.  The overall objective of the contract is to obtain administrative, engineering, technical, and other support services as required to provide planning, monitoring, research, evaluation, assessment, and documentation for the JS and other government agencies.  RFP at 10‑11.  The performance work statement (PWS) described in detail the specific tasks to be performed under the contract across nine functional task areas.  AR, Tab 4, PWS at 25‑35. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following non-cost evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance) and cost:  performance approach, management approach, and past performance.  RFP at 76, 78, 83.  The RFP advised that the non‑cost factors would be considered more important than the cost factor.  Id. The Navy received six timely proposals, including those from Highlight and ADV, which were evaluated as follows:   ADV Highlight Performance Approach Good Acceptable Management Approach Acceptable Good Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Overall Technical Rating Good Good Total Proposed Cost $7,493,063 $[DELETED] Total Evaluated Cost $8,772,811 $9,411,872 AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision, at 1, 2. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority, reviewed and concurred with the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s (SSEB) evaluation findings; performed a comparative assessment; and concluded that ADV’s proposal represented the best value to the government.  Id. at 5.  On May 7, 2019, Highlight was informed that the agency awarded the contract to ADV.  AR, Tab 22, Unsuccessful Offeror Letter, at 1.  Highlight timely requested and received a debriefing.  AR, Tab 9, Debriefing, at 2.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Highlight primarily challenges the Navy’s evaluation of ADV’s cost proposal, as well as the evaluation of its own technical proposal.