Emagine IT, Inc. (140D0421R0034)

B-420202,B-420202.2 Dec 30, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Emagine IT, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D0421R0034, issued by the Department of the Interior for cybersecurity support services. Emagine challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical and past performance proposals, alleges unequal treatment in the evaluation, and challenges the best-value 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:  Emagine IT, Inc. File:  B-420202; B-420202.2 Date:  December 30, 2021 Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Katherine A. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Amanda Sherwood, Esq., and Jessica Nejberger, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Customer Value Partners, Inc., the intervenor. Robert D. Banfield, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest of agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical and past performance proposals is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that any of the weaknesses the agency identified in its proposal were unreasonably assessed. 2.Protest that the agency unequally evaluated the proposals of the protester and awardee is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that differences in the agency’s evaluations were not due to actual differences in the proposals. DECISION Emagine IT, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Customer Value Partners, Inc. (CVP), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140D0421R0034, issued by the Department of the Interior for cybersecurity support services. Emagine challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical and past performance proposals, alleges unequal treatment in the evaluation, and challenges the best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 7, 2021, the Department of the Interior issued the RFP for enterprise information technology cybersecurity support services on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI). RFP at 2.[1] The RFP was issued as a competitive task order award using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, under the NIH Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center’s Chief Information Officer--Solutions and Partners 3 Small Business Governmentwide Acquisition Contract, Task Area 7, Critical Infrastructure Protection and Information Assurance. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. The RFP anticipated issuance of a task order for a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. RFP at 37. The RPF included a statement of work (SOW) that the contractor would be required to perform. Id. at 2-36. The technical work of the task order was divided into three “task areas” (NCI Enterprise Cybersecurity Program, Information Systems Assessment and Authorization (A&A) Support, and Cybersecurity Operational Support), each of which was broken up into multiple discrete subtasks with detailed descriptions. Id. at 3-22. Other tasks included contract management, program management, and quality assurance. Id. at 22-27. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and three non-price evaluation factors:  (1) management approach, technical capabilities, and understanding of the work; (2) staffing plan and personnel qualifications, and (3) past performance.[2] Id. at 67-68. The RFP described the three non-price evaluation factors as follows: 5.2.1  Management Approach, Technical Capabilities, and Understanding of the Work   Demonstrated understanding of the work, including understanding the objectives of the SOW and specific tasks, including requisite technical capabilities and functional expertise, and planned execution of the project.   Evidence of specific methods and techniques for completing each discrete task, to include such items as quality assurance, program management, and control processes to track performance.   Ability to address anticipated potential problem areas, demonstrating creative and feasible solutions to problems and future integration of new processes and technology enhancements. 5.2.2  Staffing Plan and Personnel Qualifications   Adequacy, suitability and effectiveness of the allocation of personnel resources as demonstrated in the proposed staffing plan. The currency, quality and depth of experience, expertise, and skills of proposed individual personnel in working on similar projects.