Zermount, Inc. (70US0921R70090055)

B-420174,B-420174.2 Dec 27, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zermount, Inc., a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Favor TechConsulting, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70US0921R70090055, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Secret Service (USSS), for enterprise cybersecurity services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the proposals and resulting 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Zermount, Inc. File:  B-420174; B-420174.2 Date:  December 27, 2021 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Terry L. Elling, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Favor TechConsulting, LLC, the intervenor. Michael H. Noyes, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s evaluation and selection of a higher-rated, lower-priced proposal for award are unobjectionable where the agency’s evaluation and best-value decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Zermount, Inc., a small business of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Favor TechConsulting, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70US0921R70090055, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Secret Service (USSS), for enterprise cybersecurity services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of the proposals and resulting award decision were improper.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2021, the agency issued the RFP as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside to firms holding the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC), Chief Information Office, Solutions and Partners (CIO SP3) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP amend. 2 at 409.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price/labor-hour/cost- reimbursement task order for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options.  Id. at 428, 438.  In general terms, the RFP sought an offeror to provide comprehensive information technology enterprise cyber security services. [2]  Id. at 415. The RFP established that contract award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering six evaluation criteria:  (1) prior demonstrated experience; (2) technical approach:  implementation and management; (3) resumes of proposed key personnel; (4) staffing approach; (5) oral presentation; and (6) price.  Id. at 484.  These evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance.  Id. The RFP also contemplated award would be made without discussions, and established that the evaluation would be conducted using a two-phased approach.  Id. at 485-486.  In the first phase, offerors would be evaluated under the prior demonstrated experience criterion, to be followed by the agency’s issuance of an “advisory down-select notification,” whereby offerors would be informed whether they were encouraged to participate in the procurement’s second phase.[3]  Id. at 478.  In the second phase, offerors would be evaluated under the remaining evaluation criteria.  Id. at 484.  The non-price criteria when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The protest here concerns the phase two evaluation of proposals.  Three offerors, including Favor and the incumbent, Zermount, submitted phase two proposals by the August 24 closing date for receipt of proposals.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 171.  An agency technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the proposals using the adjectival rating scheme set forth in the RFP:  high confidence, some confidence, and low confidence.[4]  RFP at 485.  Offerors’ prices were not rated, but assessed for unbalanced pricing, reasonableness, and consistency with the offeror’s technical approach.  Id.