Epsilon, Inc. (RFP8048)

B-419278,B-419278.2 Feb 02, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Epsilon, Inc., a small business located in Weaverville, North Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Teracore, a small business located in Woodstock, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 8048, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for enterprise Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance security and support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's technical and past performance evaluation, and argues that Teracore failed to notify IRS about the unavailability of one of its key personnel. In addition, the protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination. 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:  Epsilon, Inc. File:  B-419278; B-419278.2 Date:  February 2, 2021 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Kendra P. Norwood, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Timothy A. Furin, Esq., Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Alan M. Apple, Esq., and Ryan C. Berry, Esq., Ward & Berry PLLC, for Teracore, Inc., the intervenor. Gregory Matherne, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s post-protest explanations for weaknesses found during the agency’s evaluation is denied where the explanations are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation record. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s different evaluation treatment of the awardee’s and protester’s proposals is denied where the unequal treatment is reasonably explained by differences in the offerors’ proposals. 3.  Protest challenging errors in the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the protester was not competitively prejudiced as a result of the errors. DECISION Epsilon, Inc., a small business located in Weaverville, North Carolina, protests the issuance of a task order to Teracore, a small business located in Woodstock, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 8048, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for enterprise Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance security and support services.  The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s technical and past performance evaluation, and argues that Teracore failed to notify IRS about the unavailability of one of its key personnel.  In addition, the protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 12, 2019, IRS issued the RFP to holders of the General Services Administration’s VETS 2 governmentwide acquisition contract seeking cybersecurity services in support of the agency’s performance of assessments and risk analyses for National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-, FISMA-, Office of Management and Budget-, Treasury-, and Internal Revenue Manual-compliant security controls.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price/labor-hour task order with a base year and four option years.  The RFP stated that the acquisition would be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505, and that, “therefore, the contracting techniques under FAR part 15.3 do not apply.”  Agency Report (AR), Tab D.2.1., RFP at 1.  The RFP provided for a best-value tradeoff and anticipated the evaluation of four factors, in descending order of importance:  staffing/management, technical approach, past performance and price.  Id. at 6.  The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id.  For the evaluation of the staffing/management approach, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s approach to managing the project schedule, costs, deliverables, and personnel.  Id.  The solicitation required each offeror to address its approach to staffing the project and managing the resources assigned to the task order in support of the performance work statement (PWS).  Id.   For the technical approach factor, each offeror was to present a technical approach that demonstrated a clear understanding of the work to be performed and the offeror’s ability to successfully execute its approach.  Id. at 7. For the evaluation of past performance, the agency would evaluate offerors’ relevant and recent corporate past performance managing contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation.  Id.