XTec, Inc. (19AQMM19R0302)

B-418619,B-418619.2,B-418619.3,B-418619.4 Jul 02, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights XTec, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Guidehouse, LLP, of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM19R0302 issued by the Department of State for the development, deployment, and operation of an identity and credential management system (IDMS). The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation in numerous respects and that the awardee's subcontractors have unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). 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:  XTec, Inc. File:  B-418619; B-418619.2; B-418619.3; B-418619.4 Date:  July 2, 2020 David Cohen, Esq., Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., and Nicole E. Giles, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for Guidehouse, LLP, the intervenor. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that solicitation contained a latent ambiguity concerning the agency’s evaluation of past performance and experience is denied where the protester could not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the ambiguity. 2.  Protest that the agency erred in its evaluation of the protester’s proposal in numerous respects is denied where the agency’s evaluation judgments were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest that the agency unequally assigned strengths and weaknesses to offerors’ proposals is denied where the proposals were meaningfully different in relevant respects. 4.  Protest that the agency failed to consider the risks posed by the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the risks posed by awardee’s proposed approach. 5.  Protest that the agency failed to adequately consider the awardee’s unequal access to information organizational conflict of interest is denied, where the agency reasonably considered the available information and concluded that no conflict of interest existed. DECISION   XTec, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Guidehouse, LLP, of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM19R0302 issued by the Department of State for the development, deployment, and operation of an identity and credential management system (IDMS).  The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation in numerous respects and that the awardee’s subcontractors have unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2019, the agency issued the RFP seeking development and deployment of an agency-wide Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) compliant IDMS as well as subject matter expertise and technical services to sustain and extend the system.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  Currently, the agency employs “One Badge” as its IDMS, which, among other elements, uses personal identity verification (PIV) cards issued to agency employees.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Revised RFP at 3.[1]  These cards contain various types of cryptographic information that, among other things, are used to control physical access to facilities through physical access control systems (PACS).  Id.  The creation and management of PIV cards requires specialized software and hardware that collectively are termed an IDMS.  Id. at 77.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract priced on a time-and-materials basis, but with task orders to be awarded on a time-and-materials, labor-hour, or fixed-price basis.  Revised RFP at 3.  The solicitation also contemplated a two phase evaluation.  Id. at 72-75.  In phase one, the solicitation provided that the agency would separately assess past performance[2] and relevant experience,[3] then assign a combined “relevancy/past performance rating” for each offeror.  Id. at 88-90.  Only those offerors with the highest relevancy/past performance rating would be invited to participate in the second phase of the procurement. Id.