Netizen Corporation (RFQ1394381)

B-418281,B-418281.2,B-418281.3 Feb 21, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Netizen Corporation, a small business of Allentown, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to BreakPoint Labs, a small business of Dunn Loring, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFQ13943811, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for cybersecurity support services at the Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center's Information Technology Laboratory. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of BreakPoint's proposal was unreasonable and that the Corps did not perform a price realism analysis as required by the solicitation. 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:  Netizen Corporation File:  B-418281; B-418281.2; B-418281.3 Date:  February 21, 2020 Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos and Lamer, PC, for the protester. Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Patrick K. Burns, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for BreakPoint Labs, LLC, the intervenor. Walker Moller, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.  Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s corporate experience is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s standards for relevancy. 2.  Allegation that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis is denied because the protester has not alleged or demonstrated that the awardee’s price was unrealistic. DECISION   Netizen Corporation, a small business of Allentown, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to BreakPoint Labs, a small business of Dunn Loring, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFQ1394381[1], issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for cybersecurity support services at the Corps’ Engineer Research and Development Center’s Information Technology Laboratory.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of BreakPoint’s proposal was unreasonable and that the Corps did not perform a price realism analysis as required by the solicitation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on September 11, 2019, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4, as a total small business set-aside for contractors holding General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contracts under schedule 70, Information Technology.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFP, at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order, with a 1-year base period and a 1-year option period, for risk assessment and security engineering services for the Corps’ mission-critical activities.  RFP at 4.  Specifically, the solicitation required contractor support for computer network assessments of the management, operational, and technical security controls employed by the Corps’ information systems, to determine the overall effectiveness of those controls.  Id. The solicitation advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering price and other factors.  Id. at 32.  In addition to price, proposals were to be evaluated based on the following five factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach; corporate experience; key personnel; staffing plan and qualifications; and past performance.  Id.  The solicitation advised that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  As relevant to this protest, under the corporate experience factor, each offeror was required to “identify up to three (3) relevant projects within the last three years” that “provide a comprehensive description of the offeror’s significant capabilities and relevant corporate experience performing projects similar to the [performance work statement] requirements.”  Id.