Information Assurance Specialists, Inc-dba Sub U Systems (W91RUS21R0122)

B-420243,B-420243.2 Jan 07, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Information Assurance Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Sub U Systems (SUB-U), a small business of Turnersville, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, to NewSat North America, LLC, a small business of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W91RUS21R0122 for 27 executive communication kits. SUB-U alleges that the agency improperly found SUB-U's quotation technically unacceptable. 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:  Information Assurance Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Sub U Systems File:  B-420243; B-420243.2 Date:   January 7, 2022 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Robert L. Miller, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of its quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably found the protester’s quotation failed to meet the solicitation’s requirements. DECISION Information Assurance Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Sub U Systems (SUB-U), a small business of Turnersville, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, to NewSat North America, LLC, a small business of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W91RUS21R0122 for 27 executive communication kits.[1]  SUB-U alleges that the agency improperly found SUB-U’s quotation technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2021, the Army issued the initial solicitation as a small business set-aside for the acquisition of a “brand name or equal” commercial item under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Initial RFQ at 1.  The agency, subsequently, issued an amendment to the solicitation on September 21 that, among other things, removed the small business set-aside, removed the brand name, and otherwise modified the salient characteristics for the requirement.  AR, Tab 5, RFQ amend. 2.[2]  The solicitation contemplated award of a single fixed-price contract to the lowest-price, technically acceptable vendor, and described the requirement as “27 Executive Communication Kits with all peripherals [and] associated encryption devices” priced to include “remote hardware/software repair support, on-site training, parts and labor, for three years with 24 x 7 support provided.”[3]  AR, Tab 9, RFQ at 3, 6, 13.  In essence, the requirement was for a portable, secure voice and data communications package.  The RFQ listed more than two dozen salient characteristics.  Id. at 6-8.  Relevant here, the salient characteristics required, among other things, the communications package to be operable on three different defense network security gateways and also have a specific certification and approval.  Id. at 7 The agency received quotations from six vendors, including SUB-U and NewSat, by the solicitation’s September 25 due date for receipt of quotations.  COS/MOL at 2.  The agency evaluated SUB-U’s quotation of its Small Technical Executive Wide Area Network (STEW) as technically unacceptable because SUB-U did not address all three network security gateways and failed to comply with associated configuration requirements.  AR, Tab 10, SUB-U Quotation at 3; AR, Tab 12, SUB-U Evaluation at 2‑3.  The agency also concluded that SUB-U’s quotation was technically unacceptable because SUB-U proposed to maintain a newer, uncertified and unapproved version of its kit (the STEW-R) as a spare.  AR, Tab 12, SUB-U Evaluation at 2‑3. The agency then evaluated NewSat’s quotation of a product known as the Klas VoyagerECK and found that it was technically acceptable.  AR, Tab 11, NewSat Quotation at 30; AR Tab 13, NewSat Evaluation.  On September 27, the contracting officer, as the source selection authority, determined that NewSat had submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation and awarded the contract to NewSat.  COS/MOL at 3; AR, Tab 14, Contract.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION SUB-U challenges the agency’s evaluation of technical acceptability, arguing that the agency unreasonably found that SUB-U’s quoted product did not meet two of the RFQ’s salient characteristics.  Comments & Supp. Protest at 3-12.  SUB-U also contends that the agency applied a different, more relaxed standard, to conclude that the awardee’s quoted product met all of the salient characteristics.  Id.