Agile-Bot II, LLC (HR001120Q0002)

B-419350.3,B-419350.4 Jun 16, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agile-Bot II, LLC, a small business joint venture, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to SecuriGence LLC, a small business, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HR001120Q0002, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), for multi-network support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated quotations. The protester also argues that the agency's price realism analysis with regard to the awardee's quotation was unreasonable. 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:  Agile-Bot II, LLC File:  B-419350.3; B-419350.4 Date:  June 16, 2021 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Chelsea B. Knudson, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for SecuriGence LLC, the intervenor. Geraldine Chanel, Esq., and ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency performed an unequal evaluation is denied where the record shows that the difference in the evaluation stemmed from differences in quotations. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s price realism analysis is denied where the agency followed the stated evaluation criteria and reasonably exercised its discretion in its analysis. DECISION   Agile-Bot II, LLC, a small business joint venture, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to SecuriGence LLC, a small business, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HR001120Q0002, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), for multi‑network support services.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated quotations.  The protester also argues that the agency’s price realism analysis with regard to the awardee’s quotation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DARPA issued the RFQ on March 23, 2020, using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Initial RFQ at 0001; AR, Tab7, RFQ amend. 3 at 0115.[2]  The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a task order on a hybrid fixed‑price award fee, time-and-material, and labor-hour basis, with a 1-year base period and eight 1-year options.  AR, Tab 4, Initial RFQ at 0003-0020; RFQ at 0102.  The competition was limited to small business vendors holding an FSS schedule contract under the category of Information Technology Professional Services.  RFQ at 0115.  The RFQ sought quotations for the entire range of information technology (IT) services, support, engineering, and infrastructure necessary to implement DARPA’s IT operational, mission, and research objectives, which were expected to evolve.  Id.  The RFQ advised vendors that the resulting order would be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following seven evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) essential capabilities experience; (2) technical approach; (3) management approach; (4) key personnel; (5) past performance; (6) supply chain risk mitigation plan; and (7) price/cost.  Id. at 0115, 0117.  The RFQ provided that the essential capabilities experience factor is more important than all of the other non‑price/cost factors combined.  Id. at 0117.  The RFQ also stated that, while non‑price/cost factors combined are significantly more important than price/cost, the importance of the price/cost factor will increase as quotations under the non‑price/cost factors become closer in merit.  Id. The RFQ provided for evaluations in two phases.  Id. at 0115, 0117.  In phase I, the agency would evaluate the vendors’ recent and relevant experience working in unclassified and classified cloud environments under the essential capabilities experience factor.  Id. at 0116.  For vendors that proceeded to phase II, the agency would evaluate their quotations using all seven factors, including the essential capabilities factor.  Id.