Candor Solutions, LLC (70T02020Q6ACOO128)

B-420308,B-420308.2,B-420308.3 Jan 19, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Candor Solutions, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T02020Q6ACOO128, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, for information systems security officer support services. Candor argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision in light of its evaluation errors. 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:  Candor Solutions, LLC File:  B-420308; B-420308.2; B-420308.3 Date:  January 19, 2022 W. Brad English, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Joshua B. Duvall, Esq., Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., and Mary Ann Hanke, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the intervenor. Christopher J. Reames, Esq., Angela Varner, Esq., Christopher Curry, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Candor Solutions, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70T02020Q6ACOO128, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, for information systems security officer support services.  Candor argues that the agency misevaluated quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision in light of its evaluation errors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ contemplates the issuance of a fixed-price task order on a best-value tradeoff basis for a base year and four 1-year options.  Firms were advised that the source selection would take into consideration price and two non-price considerations, corporate experience and technical.  RFQ at BATES 1470.[1]  The RFQ further advised that the agency would use a two-phase solicitation and evaluation approach.  During phase 1, firms were required to submit a written volume I of their quotation that was confined to describing their corporate experience.  Firms were advised that the agency would perform an initial evaluation limited to the corporate experience factor and assign ratings of high confidence, some confidence or low confidence.[2]  RFQ at BATES 1465.  The RFQ advised that the agency would provide firms with an “advisory down-select” recommendation after completing its evaluation under the corporate experience factor.  RFQ at BATES 1465-1466.  Those quotations receiving a rating of either high confidence or some confidence would be recommended for continued participation in the acquisition, while those quotations receiving a rating of low confidence would not be recommended for further participation.  Id.  (Firms whose quotations received a low confidence rating under the corporate experience factor could, at their election, continue participating in the acquisition.  Id.)  Those firms electing to participate further in the acquisition were required to submit phase 2 quotations, which were to include two volumes.  RFQ at BATES 1466.  Volume II was to be comprised of a Microsoft power point presentation that detailed the firm’s response under the technical factor (including detailed information about the firm’s technical approach, staffing approach, and key personnel) while volume III was to be comprised of the firm’s business and price quotation.  Id. at 1458-1462.  In addition, firms were required to participate in an oral presentation of their technical quotation that would include responding to three “scenarios” to be provided during the oral presentation.  Id.