BEAT, LLC (N6523619R3507)

B-418235,B-418235.2 Jan 30, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Business Enabled Acquisition & Technology, LLC (BEAT), of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a task order contract to Sentar, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523619R3507, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic (NIWC), for cybersecurity risk management operations support. BEAT alleges that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its proposal, failed to refer a nonresponsibility determination to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under certificate of competency procedures, and improperly adjusted its proposed costs. 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:  BEAT, LLC File:  B-418235; B-418235.2 Date:  January 30, 2020 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Andrew C. Crawford, Esq., Brown Rudnick, LLP, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., R. Locke Bell, Esq., and Victoria D. Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, for Sentar, LLC, the intervenor. Scott J. McGuigan, Esq., and David R. White, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that the agency should have referred a nonresponsibility determination to the Small Business Administration under certificate of competency procedures is denied where the agency did not effectively evaluate the protester as nonresponsible but rather simply identified aspects of the protester’s proposal as weak under the evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest challenging the cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that agency reasonably determined that protester’s estimated costs were unrealistically low. DECISION Business Enabled Acquisition & Technology, LLC (BEAT), of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a task order contract to Sentar, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6523619R3507, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic (NIWC), for cybersecurity risk management operations support.  BEAT alleges that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its proposal, failed to refer a nonresponsibility determination to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under certificate of competency procedures, and improperly adjusted its proposed costs. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 3, 2019, the Navy issued the RFP to procure cybersecurity risk management operations support services for the Defense Health Agency, Information Services Division.[1]  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; AR, Tab 2, RFP at 8.  The RFP was issued against the Navy’s SeaPort Next-Generation (NX-G) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract.  COS/MOL at 3.  The RFP contemplated the award of a performance based cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort, and cost-reimbursement task order to be performed over a 1‑year base period and three 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 4-7, 86. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering cost and non-cost factors.  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 96.  Non-cost factors included gate criteria, technical capability, and management plan.  Id.  The gate criteria assessed, on a pass or fail basis, whether each offeror had at least one year experience collecting and reporting required information.  Id. at 90, 96.  Proposals receiving a passing score for the gate criteria factor were evaluated under the technical capability and management plan factors.  Id. at 96-97.  The tradeoff decision would consider the technical capability, management plan, and cost factors; in making the tradeoff decision, the RFP specified that the non-cost factors were significantly more important than the cost factor, and that the technical capability factor was more important than the management plan factor. The technical capability factor (i.e., factor B) required the agency to assess each offeror’s corporate experience in an enterprise‑level environment under four subfactors.  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 97-98.  Subfactor B1 required offerors to demonstrate experience developing, maintaining, and updating risk posture assessments; providing oversight and compliance reporting for the Cybersecurity Vulnerability Management program; and providing risk mitigation strategies relative to the assessments (greater than 50,000 server and workstation assets).  Id.