Network Runners, Inc. (N66001-18-R-0005)

B-418268,B-418268.2 Feb 14, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Network Runners, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Sterling, Virginia, protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6001-18-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, for informational technology (IT) services. The protester argues that: (1) the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as deficient for failing to demonstrate organizational experience in required key areas; (2) the agency deviated from the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria; and (3) the agency inconsistently evaluated its proposal under the organizational experience and past performance factors. 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:  Network Runners, Inc. File:  B-418268; B-418268.2 Date:  February 14, 2020 Michael J. Navarre, Esq., Caitlin T. Conroy, Esq., and Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for the protester. Diana L. King, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging deficiencies evaluated in the protester’s proposal is denied because the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency inconsistently evaluated the protester’s proposal under the organizational experience and past performance factors is denied because the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION   Network Runners, Inc., a woman-owned small business of Sterling, Virginia, protests the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6001-18-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, for informational technology (IT) services.  The protester argues that:  (1) the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as deficient for failing to demonstrate organizational experience in required key areas; (2) the agency deviated from the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria; and (3) the agency inconsistently  evaluated its proposal under the organizational experience and past performance factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2018, utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, the agency issued the RFP, as a total small business set-aside, seeking IT services to support the physical and logical infrastructure of the agency’s Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) network.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP, at 1, 7, 93.  The RDT&E computer and communications network supports a scientific user community, located at more than 130 research and development labs, which utilizes the network “to develop, test, and certify new systems.”  Id. at 7.  Included in this network is the Secret RDT&E network, “which provides local secure connectivity.”  Id.  The solicited IT services in support of the RDT&E and Secret RDT&E networks include, among other things:  video teleconferencing; telephone infrastructure support; information resources management; network operations center support; server system administration and engineering; Microsoft system center configuration management administration and engineering; network security; cybersecurity; network infrastructure support; and cloud administration and engineering.  Id. The solicitation contemplates award of multiple indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contracts with a 2-year base period and three 1-year option periods, under which both cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort and cost-plus-fixed-fee completion task orders may be issued.  RFP at 3-4, 38-39, 79, 93.  The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis taking into consideration three factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) organizational experience; (2) past performance; and (3) cost.  Id. at 93.  The solicitation provided that the two non-cost factors combined were significantly more important than cost.  Id. The solicitation established a three-step evaluation process.  RFP at 93.  Step one had two parts; first, the agency would evaluate each offer on a pass or fail basis for “acceptability”--e.g., whether the offeror took exceptions to or imposed conditions on the terms and conditions of the RFP.  Id. at 94.  Next, the agency would evaluate each offeror’s organizational experience and past performance.  Id. at 94-95.  Offerors receiving a marginal or lower rating for organizational experience would be eliminated from the competition after this step, and would not be further evaluated.  Id.