Triple Point Security, Inc. (75N95020R00009)

B-419375.2 Feb 11, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Triple Point Security, Inc., of Leesburg, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision, Triple Point Security, Inc., B-419375, Dec. 7, 2020 (unpublished decision), wherein our Office dismissed its protest challenging the award of a contract to Zero Trust, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75N95020R00009, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), for cybersecurity services. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Triple Point Security, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-419375.2 Date:  February 11, 2021 Carlo Espiritu, for the protester. Tony A. Ross, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the request does not demonstrate that our decision contained either factual or legal error. DECISION   Triple Point Security, Inc., of Leesburg, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision, Triple Point Security, Inc., B-419375, Dec. 7, 2020 (unpublished decision), wherein our Office dismissed its protest challenging the award of a contract to Zero Trust, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75N95020R00009, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), for cybersecurity services.  We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued under the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 12.6 and 13.5, sought cybersecurity services to support the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, RFP, amend. 1 at 1, 6, 74.  The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to be performed over a 3-year ordering period.  Id. at 49.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical, past performance, and cost factors.  Id. at 67.  The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id. Thirteen offerors, including Triple Point and Zero Trust, submitted proposals prior to the August 17, 2020, closing date.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1.  On October 1, NIH notified Triple Point that award had been made to Zero Trust, in the amount of $1,666,692, as offering the best value to the agency.  Id.  On October 2, Triple Point requested a debriefing.  Req. for Dismissal at 1.  On October 16, NIH provided the firm a brief explanation of award pursuant to FAR section 13.106‑3.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, Brief Explanation of Award at 1.  The correspondence communicated that Triple Point’s proposal was evaluated as technically inferior, and at a higher evaluated price, when compared to the proposal of Zero Trust.  Id. at 2.  On October 23, Triple Point challenged the award in a protest filed with our Office.  The firm argued that “[t]he Government did not follow the evaluation process or adhere to the evaluation factors” as delineated in the RFP.  Protest at 1.  According to Triple Point, NIH’s failure to follow or adhere to the evaluation factors resulted “in the partial evaluation of proposals and/or omission of information material to the Technical Rating, scoring, and award decision.”  Id.  The firm did not support its argument with any details demonstrating how the agency evaluated any proposal inconsistently with the RFP.  See id. On November 12, NIH requested dismissal of the protest, asserting that Triple Point’s argument amounted to speculation and was subject to dismissal under our Bid Protest Regulations.  Req. for Dismissal at 2 (arguing that the protest should be dismissed under 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4)).  NIH argued that the protest lacked any factual support.  Id. at 2-3.  In response, Triple Point argued that Zero Trust did not have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) as required by the RFP.  Triple Point Response, Nov. 15, 2020. On December 7, our Office dismissed the protest as untimely.  Triple Point Security, supra at 1.  We explained that the procurement was conducted using simplified acquisition procedures under FAR part 13.  Id. at 2-3.  As a result, the brief explanation of award did not constitute a “required debriefing” within the meaning of the exception to the requirement that a protest must be filed within 10 days of when the protester knew or reasonably should have known of its basis of protest.  Id.