Enterprise Solutions & Management Corporation (RFQ832200002)

B-421776 Sep 28, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Enterprise Solutions & Management Corporation (ESM), a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Agile-Bot II, LLC, a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 832200002, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for identity assurance support. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency in ESM's quotation under the technical/management approach factor and, based on this error, improperly evaluated the quotation as unacceptable. The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency's technical evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Matter of: Enterprise Solutions & Management Corporation File: B-421776 Date: September 28, 2023 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Julia Swafford, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., and Allison M. Siegel, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Agile-Bot II, LLC, the intervenor. Vera A. Strebel, Esq., and Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency in the protester’s quotation is denied where protester failed to comply with a solicitation requirement. DECISION Enterprise Solutions & Management Corporation (ESM), a small business of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Agile-Bot II, LLC, a small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 832200002, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for identity assurance support. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably assessed a deficiency in ESM’s quotation under the technical/management approach factor and, based on this error, improperly evaluated the quotation as unacceptable. The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 9, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside to contract holders under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, in accordance with the ordering procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Contracting Officer Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1; AR, Tab 1a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1-2.[1] The solicitation sought support services for identity verification and the issuance of credentials for access to DOD‑protected online resources for the Joint Service Provider (JSP).[2] PWS at 2. The RFQ anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1‑year base period and three 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 2. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the vendor whose quotation was determined to represent the best overall value to the government using a best‑value tradeoff process considering the factors of technical/management approach and price. Id. at 4‑5. According to the RFQ, the technical/management approach factor was more important than price. Id. at 5. The technical/management approach factor was comprised of five subfactors of equal importance: (1) DISA mobility classified capability secret (DMCC‑S) and Windows data at rest secret (WINDAR-S) certificate issuance support; (2) JSP enterprise certification authority (ECA) support; (3) product evaluation; (4) technical support; and (5) management approach. Id. at 4. The first two subfactors under the technical/management approach factor were to be assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, based on the approach and understanding of requirements indicated by the quotation and the evaluated strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Id.; AR, Tab 1f, RFQ Evaluation Tables at 1. As relevant here, a deficiency was defined as a “material failure of a proposal/quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal/quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.” Tab 1f, RFQ Evaluation Tables at 1. A quotation containing one or more deficiencies would be rated unacceptable and would be ineligible for award. Id. The remaining three subfactors would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.