KeyLogic Associates, Inc. (1333BJ23R00280001)

B-421346,B-421347,B-421348,B-421377,B-421378 Mar 08, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KeyLogic Associates, Inc. (KeyLogic), of McLean, Virginia, and KSD Technologies, LLC (KSD), a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protest the Department of Commerce, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) issuance of several requests for proposals (RFP) for various information technology (IT) services on a noncompetitive basis. The protesters contend that the agency: (1) has not justified its reasons for using noncompetitive procedures as required by 41 U.S.C. § 1708(c)(5) and the Patent and Trademark Office Acquisition Guidelines (PTAG); (2) has failed to provide the protesters with copies of the RFPs as required by 41 U.S.C. § 1708(g); and (3) has not complied with the time limitations of 41 U.S.C. § 1708(e) in issuing the RFPs. Additionally, KSD contends that the agency has violated 13 C.F.R. § 125.2 in setting aside certain of the RFPs for small businesses and issuing those RFPs to a single small business each. We deny the protests. View Decision Decision Matter of: KeyLogic Associates, Inc.; KSD Technologies, LLC File: B-421346; B-421347; B-421348; B-421377; B-421378 Date: March 8, 2023 John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Jason W. Moy, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protesters. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Blackwatch International Corporation, the intervenor. Joe D. Baker II, Esq., and Susan E. Sharp, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests alleging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, when conducting procurements in accordance with its statutorily authorized alternative competition method pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(4)(A), failed to reasonably justify its use of other than competitive procedures under 41 U.S.C. § 1708(c)(5) are denied where that statutory provision does not require such a justification. 2. Protests alleging agency failed to comply with internal agency guidance are denied because alleged violations of internal agency policy or guidance, rather than statute or regulation, do not establish a valid basis for protest. 3. Protests alleging that agency failed to comply with requirements regarding time for issuing solicitations following publication of procurement notices, provision of solicitations to requesting parties, and small business set‑asides are denied for lack of competitive prejudice because the agency was permitted to select a single firm to receive the challenged solicitations. DECISION KeyLogic Associates, Inc. (KeyLogic), of McLean, Virginia, and KSD Technologies, LLC (KSD), a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protest the Department of Commerce, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) issuance of several requests for proposals (RFP) for various information technology (IT) services on a noncompetitive basis. The protesters contend that the agency: (1) has not justified its reasons for using noncompetitive procedures as required by 41 U.S.C. § 1708(c)(5) and the Patent and Trademark Office Acquisition Guidelines (PTAG); (2) has failed to provide the protesters with copies of the RFPs as required by 41 U.S.C. § 1708(g); and (3) has not complied with the time limitations of 41 U.S.C. § 1708(e) in issuing the RFPs. Additionally, KSD contends that the agency has violated 13 C.F.R. § 125.2 in setting aside certain of the RFPs for small businesses and issuing those RFPs to a single small business each. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFPs at issue as part of its Enterprise Infrastructure Product Line (EIPL) Rapid Phase Production (RPP) procurement effort, with each RFP concerning a separate IT functional area. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. As discussed further below, for each RFP, the agency selected a single firm that the agency decided was most likely to successfully meet the agency’s requirements for the RFP’s particular functional area, and issued the corresponding RFP to that firm. Id. at 4‑7. RFP No. 1333BJ23R00280001 (RFP 0001), which KeyLogic challenges in the protest docketed as B‑421346, encompasses platform services. Id. at 1‑2. RFP No. 1333BJ23R00280003 (RFP 0003), which KSD challenges in the protest docketed as B‑421347, encompasses compute services.[1] Id. at 2. RFP No. 1333BJ23R00280005 (RFP 0005), which KSD challenges in the protest docketed as B‑421348, encompasses integration services. Id. RFP No. 1333BJ23R00280004 (RFP 0004), which KSD challenges in the protest docketed as B‑421377, encompasses identity, credential, and access management services. Id. at 3. RFP No. 1333BJ23R00280007 (RFP 0007), which KeyLogic challenges in the protest docketed as B‑421378, encompasses end user services.[2] Id.