SigNet Technologies, Inc. (FA8730-19-R-0005)

B-418677 Jul 23, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SigNet Technologies, Inc. (SigNet), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of multiple contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8730-19-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the acquisition of physical and electronic security systems. SigNet argues that the agency should have engaged in clarifications regarding its proposal. SigNet further contends that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal. 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:  SigNet Technologies, Inc. File:  B-418677 Date:  July 23, 2020 Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., Butzel Long, PC, for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Josephine Farinelli, Esq., Michael J. Farr, Esq., Laura K. Koepnick, Esq., and Andrew J. Sibley, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Angela H. Moon, Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest asserting that agency was required to seek clarification before rejecting the protester’s proposal as unacceptable is denied where the record shows that any exchanges regarding issues in the protester’s proposal would have constituted discussions. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is dismissed where the protester abandoned its substantive challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal. DECISION   SigNet Technologies, Inc. (SigNet), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of multiple contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8730-19-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the acquisition of physical and electronic security systems.  SigNet argues that the agency should have engaged in clarifications regarding its proposal.  SigNet further contends that the agency improperly evaluated its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2019, the Air Force issued the RFP under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, for contractors to implement physical and electronic security systems to protect Air Force sites worldwide, known as the Force Protection Site Security System Solutions (FPS4) program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, RFP at 68, 155, 208.[1]  The FPS4 program includes many features of cybersecurity and technology requirements.  Id. at 72-74.  The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a 5-year ordering period (with a performance period extending an additional 3-years) and a ceiling of $783 million for all contracts.  Id. at 155.  These contracts utilize fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement, and time-and-materials contract line item numbers.  Id. Award would be made to all qualifying offerors, which the RFP defined as a responsible source that submits a technically acceptable proposal and offers a fair and reasonable price.  Id. at 208.  Cost would not be evaluated at the IDIQ level, but would be evaluated on individual delivery orders.  Id. at 212.  Furthermore, the RFP stated that the government intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, but reserved the right to engage in clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a).  Id. at 209. The only evaluation factor specified in the RFP was the technical factor.  Id. at 209.  The technical factor identified four subfactors, including, as relevant here, the infrastructure subfactor.[2]  Id. at 209.  The technical factor required an offeror to provide a solution to a sample problem at a hypothetical Air Force base.  Id. at 168.  The agency would evaluate whether the offeror proposed an adequate solution demonstrating sufficient knowledge to satisfy the government’s sample problem requirements.  Id. at 210.  As relevant to the infrastructure subfactor, the agency would assess the adequacy and thoroughness of the offeror’s understanding of three elements:  communications infrastructure, power infrastructure, and communications networking.  Id. at 211.  The agency would also assess the soundness and efficiency of the offeror’s approach to addressing the sample problem.  Id. A proposal would be deemed technically acceptable if every technical subfactor were rated both: (1) acceptable quality (on an acceptable/unacceptable basis); and (2) low or moderate risk.[3]  Id. at 208.  These ratings would be based on the agency’s assessment of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in each offeror’s technical proposal.  Id.