Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. (HS002122R0005)

B-420881,B-420881.2 Oct 14, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cybermedia Technologies, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to The Prospective Group, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HS002122R0005, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), for industrial security support services at Quantico, Virginia and at agency regional and field offices nationwide. Cybermedia argues that DOD misevaluated Prospective's price, and failed to properly assess and remedy the awardee's alleged conflict of interest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Cybermedia Technologies, Inc. File: B-420881; B-420881.2 Date: October 14, 2022 John E. Jensen, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Ariella M. Cassell, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth Brody, Esq., and Katherine David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for The Prospective Group, Inc., the intervenor. Matthew Donohue, Esq., Katie Oyler, Esq., and Tiffany Williams, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s price and pricing risk is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation criteria. 2. Protest that awardee had an organizational conflict of interest resulting from its subcontractor’s hiring of five former agency officials is denied where the record shows that four departed the agency before procurement planning began, and that the fifth was not involved in solicitation preparation before departing the agency. DECISION Cybermedia Technologies, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to The Prospective Group, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HS002122R0005, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), for industrial security support services at Quantico, Virginia and at agency regional and field offices nationwide. Cybermedia argues that DOD misevaluated Prospective’s price, and failed to properly assess and remedy the awardee’s alleged conflict of interest. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Initial planning and preparation for the procurement at issue began in November 2020. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Declaration at 2. The RFP, issued on February 23, 2022, initiated a competition under the General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for a fixed-price order for a base year and four option years. The RFP was posted on the GSA e‑Buy portal for competition among OASIS vendors in small business pool 1. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. Additionally, the RFP specified a tiered evaluation of offers in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement section 215.203-70, in which proposals from women-owned small businesses would be evaluated first, followed if needed by lower tiers that added other small business subcategories. AR, Tab 6, RFP at 133-34. The RFP included a performance work statement (PWS) that described the scope of work as including program management, resource development, technical support, research, analysis, communication, and task management; identifying risks to cleared facilities; collating data sets; furnishing increased oversight of the facility clearance process/foreign ownership control or influence mitigation, and supporting senior agency leadership. AR, Tab 4, RFP amend. 2 at 2-3. Part 5 of the PWS described the work in greater detail in 10 task areas. For example, as relevant to the protest, task area No. 8 specified services for maintaining critical technology protection industrial security oversight support, and indicated that the task area No. 8 requirement was expected to grow over the course of performance. Id. at 38-39. The proposals were to be evaluated under four factors: technical approach, management approach, past performance, and price.[1] RFP at 128. The task order would be issued to the firm whose proposal provided the best value, where the technical approach factor was significantly more important than the management approach factor, which was significantly more important that the past performance factor. Id. When combined, the three non-price factors were significantly more important than the price factor.