MindPoint Group, LLC (FRTIB1-23-Q-0018)

B-421869.2,B-421869.3 Feb 09, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MindPoint Group, LLC (MindPoint), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ShorePoint, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FRTIB1-23-Q-0018, for cybersecurity, risk, and compliance support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of quotations and source selection decision. 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: MindPoint Group, LLC File: B-421869.2; B-421869.3 Date: February 9, 2024 Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., and Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. James C. Fontana, Esq., Fontana Law Group, PLLC, and David R. Warner, Esq., and Heather Mims, Esq., Warner, PLLC, for ShorePoint, Inc., the intervenor. Alex Cohn, Esq., Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester whose General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule contract expired following the issuance of a task order under the instant solicitation is an interested party to challenge the agency’s reevaluation of quotations and new source selection decision following corrective action in response to a prior protest where the protester still holds the originally issued task order. 2. Protest challenging the awardee’s quotation as ineligible for award based on an alleged failure to comply with solicitation instructions is denied where the agency reasonably found the awardee’s quotation technically acceptable. 3. Protest challenging the evaluation of quotations under the staffing and management approach factor is dismissed where the basis of the argument is contradicted by the record and therefore fails to state a valid basis of protest. 4. Protest challenging the source selection decision as contrary to the terms of the solicitation is denied where the record demonstrates that the selection decision was made as contemplated by the terms of the solicitation. DECISION MindPoint Group, LLC (MindPoint), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ShorePoint, Inc.,[1] of Herndon, Virginia, by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FRTIB1‑23‑Q‑0018, for cybersecurity, risk, and compliance support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of quotations and source selection decision. We deny the protest. Background The FRTIB was established by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERSA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8401‑8479, as a self‑funded agency with independent budgetary authority that receives no annual appropriations from Congress. Thrift Federal Acquisition Supplement, Oct. 1, 2018, at Preamble. Due to FRTIB’s unique status, it is not strictly bound by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); however, the agency has determined that its procurements will largely adhere to the FAR unless doing so could infringe upon its fiduciary obligations under FERSA. Id. The FRTIB issued the RFQ on April 26, 2023, using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of FAR subpart 8.4, to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts with special item number (SIN) 54151 for highly adaptive cybersecurity services (HACS). Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Initial RFQ at 1, 13. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a task order with a 12-month base period and four 12‑month option periods. AR, Tab 4, RFQ amend. 0002 at 11. The agency sought quotations for cybersecurity, risk, and compliance support services. Id. at 13. The task order would be issued on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: technical approach; staffing and management approach; past performance; and price. Id. at 56. The non‑price factors were of equal importance; when combined, the non‑price factors were more important than price. Id. In the event quotations were rated similarly under the non‑price factors, the importance of price could increase. Id. (“The closer the quot[ations] are judged for evaluation [under the non‑price factors], the more important price may become in the decision.”). Quotations were due by May 26. Id. at 10. The agency received eight quotations by the deadline. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. Quotations were evaluated on July 11, and a task order was issued to MindPoint on August 4. Id. Following the issuance of the task order to MindPoint, ShorePoint filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision. ShorePoint, Inc., B‑421869, Aug.