root9B, LLC

B-417801,B-417801.2 Nov 04, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Root9B, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Chiron Technology Services, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-19-R-0081 (known as FLYREEL), issued by the National Security Agency (NSA), for training services at locations. Root9B argues that NSA misevaluated its proposal and awarded the contract at an unreasonable price. 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:  Root9B, LLC File:  B-417801; B-417801.2 Date:  November 4, 2019 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Erin L. Felix, Esq., Polsinelli P.C., for the protester. Laura A. Wallace, Esq., and Danielle M. Prongay, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency.  Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s evaluation criteria and reasonably assessed a deficiency in protester’s proposal, making it unacceptable. 2.  Protester is an interested party to challenge the agency’s price reasonableness determination, despite its lower-priced proposal being unacceptable, because the awardee was the only other offeror and, if the protest were sustained, the agency could find the awardee ineligible for award and would have to reopen the competition.  3.  Protest that agency determination of price reasonableness was unreasonable is denied where the agency compared the awardee’s price to an independent government estimate that was based on agency’s historical costs for requirement, recent requirements by other agencies, and a reasonable estimate regarding increased future usage. DECISION Root9B, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Chiron Technology Services, Inc., of Columbia, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-19-R-0081 (known as FLYREEL), issued by the National Security Agency (NSA), for training services at locations [DELETED].  Root9B argues that NSA misevaluated its proposal and awarded the contract at an unreasonable price.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on November 26, 2018, was transmitted to seven selected firms,[1] inviting each to submit a proposal to deliver cybersecurity training courses[2] for the National Cryptologic School, under a single-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a $56 million ceiling.  The RFP provided for a 5-year ordering period, and anticipated that the agency would issue an order to the contractor for each course for its corresponding fixed price and for reimbursement of travel costs when applicable.  The accompanying statement of work (SOW) indicated that the contractor would deliver training courses in 10 technical knowledge areas ([DELETED]), and would deliver each course at any of three levels of expertise.  RFP SOW at 2 (¶ 4.2); SOW Appendix F.  The RFP separately required the contractor to deliver intermediate cyber core (ICC) courses, which would provide the necessary academic background and proficiency to describe and navigate the digital environment.  RFP at 157-159.  The contractor would have to be able to present up to five courses concurrently in a single knowledge area, and up to 10 courses concurrently overall.  RFP SOW at 1 (¶ 4.0).  Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government.  The RFP identified three non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical, management, and past performance.  RFP Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC) at 1, 6.  Those three factors, when combined, were more important than evaluated price.  Id. at 6.  The evaluation under the technical and management factors would result in adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.  Id. at 2-3.  An unacceptable rating would be assessed for a proposal evaluated as having one or more deficiencies or where the “risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.”  Id. at 3.  Within the technical and management factors, the RFP described subfactors, and within each subfactor, criteria.  Id. at 6.  The technical factor had two subfactors:  technical approach and performance risk assessment, with the former more important than the latter.  Id. at 6-7.  Under the performance risk assessment subfactor evaluation, at issue here, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s ability to assess the risk of the fixed price contract structure and account for the technical uncertainty of the course content to be delivered.  Id.