Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (70RTAC20R00000026)

B-419271.5,B-419271.6,B-419271.8 Apr 26, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, protests the issuance of task orders to AT&T Corp., of Oakton, Virginia, under fair opportunity request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RTAC20R00000026, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for DHS headquarters core data (HQCD) requirements. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of offerors' task order proposals and award decision were improper. 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 version has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. File:  B-419271.5; B-419271.6; B-419271.8 Date:  April 26, 2021 Jason A. Carey, Esq., Kayleigh Scalzo, Esq., Peter B. Terenzio III, Esq., and Sarah M. Shepson, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Jonathan M. Baker, Esq., Christian N. Curran, Esq., Alexandra L. Barbee-Garrett, Esq., and Rina M. Gashaw, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for AT&T Corp., an intervenor. Peter G. Hartman, Esq., and Brian C. Habib, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that the difference between the offerors’ proposed prices shows that they were not competing on a common basis is denied where the protester does not identify any solicitation provisions which were vague or misleading. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was without prejudice to the protester. 3.  Protest alleging the agency engaged in inadequate discussions is denied where the agency’s exchanges were meaningful, not misleading, and without prejudice to the protester. 4.  Protest alleging that awardee was ineligible for award is dismissed as untimely where it fails to independently meet GAO timeliness requirements and represents an unwarranted piecemeal development and presentation of protest issues, which our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate. DECISION   Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, protests the issuance of task orders to AT&T Corp., of Oakton, Virginia, under fair opportunity request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RTAC20R00000026, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for DHS headquarters core data (HQCD) requirements.  The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ task order proposals and award decision were improper.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DHS is in the process of modernizing its information technology services and capabilities, with the goal of “improve[ing] network and telecommunications service delivery across the Department. . . .”  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7d, Statement of Work (SOW) at 13; see Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2.  To support its network transition, transformation, and modernization efforts, DHS developed the HQCD requirements SOW here.  Specifically, “DHS seeks to acquire, or have the option to acquire in the future,” the following:  virtual private network service; ethernet transport service; optical wavelength service; private line service; internet protocol service; internet protocol voice service; managed network service; managed trusted internet protocol service; access arrangements; cable and wiring service; dark fiber service; a modernized software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN); a trusted internet connection and policy enforcement point; web conferencing service; and circuit switch voice service.  SOW at 13. The RFP was issued on June 24, 2020, to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) governmentwide acquisition contracts, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.[2]  AR, Tab 7, RFP at 4.[3]  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of four task orders, on fixed-price with economic price adjustment, and time-and-materials with economic price adjustment bases, for a base year with eleven 1-year options.[4]  RFP at 9, 63.  The RFP established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  (1) performance management approach; (2) transition and modernization approach; and (3) price.  Id. at 76-77.  The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.