TekSynap Corporation (HM0476-20-R-0001)

B-419464.3,B-419464.4 Jan 05, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TekSynap Corporation, a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) award of a contract to Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, LLC (CARS), a small business, of Lorton, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0476-20-R-0001, to provide various enterprise management information technology (IT) support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and alleges that the awardee has an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) rendering it ineligible for award. 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: TekSynap Corporation File: B-419464.3; B-419464.4 Date: January 5, 2023 Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Tjasse L. Fritz, Esq., and David L. Bodner, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Bree A. Ermentrout, Esq., Anthony Lascola, Esq., Kenneth W. Sachs, Esq., and Darrell L. Tardiff, Esq., National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging numerous aspects of agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical and price proposal is denied because the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest arguing awardee has an unmitigated impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest is dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to raise this allegation because it would not be in line for award even if this protest ground were to be sustained. DECISION TekSynap Corporation, a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the National Geospatial‑Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) award of a contract to Chenega Agile Real‑Time Solutions, LLC (CARS), a small business, of Lorton, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HM0476-20-R-0001, to provide various enterprise management information technology (IT) support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and alleges that the awardee has an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) rendering it ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 9, 2020, the NGA issued RFP No. HM0476-20-R-0001 (referred to as the Enterprise Management Services (EMS) procurement), pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. The solicitation contemplated the single award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and the simultaneous award of the initial task order (TO 0001). Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1.b., RFP at 4, 124.[1] The RFP provided that the IDIQ contract will have an 8-year ordering period, and that TO 0001 will have a 12-month base performance period and seven 12-month option periods. Id. at 124. The solicitation sought proposals for a full spectrum of IT services on multiple networks and security domains, including intelligence community cloud and desktop environments, at multiple locations worldwide for both existing and new facilities, in support of NGA’s geospatial-intelligence mission. AR, Tab A.11.c, RFP amend. 10, attach. J.1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation provided that the source selection decision would be based on a best‑value tradeoff between price and several non-price factors. AR, Tab A.11.b, RFP amend. 10 at 30. The non-price factors were technical/management, past performance, and security. Id. The RFP identified the technical/management factor as the most important factor and provided that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 32. The technical/management factor consisted of the following three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: management plan, technical approach, and transition plan.[2] Id. at 31‑32. The solicitation provided that price proposals would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism, and that each offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) would be used in the best‑value tradeoff analysis.[3] Id. at 40‑42. Five offerors, including TekSynap and CARS, submitted proposals by the April 27 closing date for receipt of proposals. AR, Tab E.4, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 2. After evaluating the proposals, the agency established a competitive range, conducted discussions, and awarded the contract to CARS on December 1. Id. at 2‑3. On December 9, TekSynap filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency’s evaluation and decision not to reopen discussions.