M C Dean, Inc. (H98230-19-R-0148)

B-418553,B-418553.2 Jun 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights M.C. Dean, Inc., of Tysons, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to PTSI Managed Services, Inc. (PTSI), of Pasadena, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-19-R-0148, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Security Service, Maryland Procurement Office to provide maintenance, installation, and distribution services for the agency's comprehensive enterprise class physical security system. M.C. Dean challenges almost every aspect of the agency's evaluation. We sustain 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:  M.C. Dean, Inc. File:  B-418553; B-418553.2 Date:  June 15, 2020 John R. Prairie, Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for PTSI Managed Services, Inc., the intervenor. Laura A. Wallace, Esq., and Kathryn B. Codd, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where record shows that awardee had actual knowledge prior to award that one of its key personnel was unavailable to perform, but failed to notify the agency of this material change in circumstances. DECISION   M.C. Dean, Inc., of Tysons, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to PTSI Managed Services, Inc. (PTSI), of Pasadena, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-19-R-0148, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Security Service, Maryland Procurement Office to provide maintenance, installation, and distribution services for the agency’s comprehensive enterprise class physical security system.  M.C. Dean challenges almost every aspect of the agency’s evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND According to the RFP, the agency’s security and counterintelligence (S&CI) organization is responsible for protecting the agency’s “classified and sensitive information, facilities, assets, infrastructure and personnel [DELETED], through a comprehensive analysis of risk and deployment of physical and technical security countermeasures.”  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) § 1.0.  To protect the agency’s assets, S&CI created the [DELETED] program, which the RFP explains is “an enterprise class physical security program.”  Id.  The objectives of this program include, among other things, upgrading [DELETED], developing [DELETED], enhancing [DELETED], and expanding [DELETED].  Id.  This procurement, which the RFP refers to as KUVASZ, is for maintenance, installation, and distribution services for the [DELETED] program.[1]  These services include [DELETED].  Id. § 2.0.  Performance of the contract would occur at various agency facilities [DELETED].  See id. §§ 4.3, 6.0. The agency intends to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and time-and-materials delivery orders.  RFP, Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC) § 1.0.  The solicitation provided for a best-value tradeoff decision based on an evaluation of the following factors and subfactors: Factor 1: Management Subfactor 1: Quality Assurance Plan Subfactor 2: Personnel Qualification Subfactor 3: Configuration Management Plan Factor 2: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Technical Scenario Factor 3: Price   Id. §§ 1.0, 2.1.  The management factor was more important than the technical factor, and when combined, the management and technical factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. § 2.2.  The subfactors under the management factor were of equal importance, and the subfactors under the technical factor are listed in descending order of importance in the above table.  Id. §§ 2.2.1, 2.2.2.  The RFP stated that the agency would assign an adjectival rating to each factor and subfactor.[2]  Id. § 2.1.  The RFP listed a number of criteria under each subfactor that the agency would evaluate.  See id. §§ 3.1.1-3.2.2. As relevant here, the RFP identified seven key personnel labor categories, including the program manager.  SOW § 7.1.  The RFP stated that the program manager “will be the [p]rogram [m]anagement [l]ead and the [p]rimary [p]oint of [c]ontact . . . and serve as the manager of the application of this contract.”  Id. § 4.1.  The RFP further stated that the program manager “shall be responsible for the successful cost, schedule, and performance of the contract.”  RFP, app.