Guidehouse Inc. (70RCSJ23Q00000049)

B-422147,B-422147.2 Jan 25, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse Inc. of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Accenture Federal Services, LLC (Accenture) of Arlington, Virginia. The task order was issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RCSJ23Q00000049, for cybersecurity risk reduction services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations. 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: Guidehouse Inc. File: B-422147; B-422147.2 Date: January 25, 2024 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Craig Smith, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., and Vaibhavi Patria, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Accenture Federal Services, LLC, the intervenor. Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation of quotations is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Guidehouse Inc. of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Accenture Federal Services, LLC (Accenture) of Arlington, Virginia. The task order was issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RCSJ23Q00000049, for cybersecurity risk reduction services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest. Background CISA is responsible for protecting and enhancing the resilience of physical and cyber infrastructure. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4a, Statement of Work (SOW) at 2. Within CISA’s cybersecurity division (CSD), vulnerability management subdivision (VM), the Insights branch (or simply, “Insights”) works to reduce vulnerability risk and attack surface exposure through continuous data analysis. Id. The instant procurement seeks a contractor to provide actionable, timely, relevant, and accurate data‑driven analysis and risk reduction guidance to the Insights branch. Id. On July 14, 2023, CISA issued the RFQ to holders of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Chief Information Officer Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO‑SP3) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. AR, Tab 3, Initial RFQ at 1. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a single fixed‑price and labor‑hour task order, with a 9‑month base period and four 1‑year option periods. Id. at 35; AR, Tab 4a, SOW at 35. The task order would be issued using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505 to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government. AR, Tab 5, RFQ Amend. 0002 at 37. Quotations would first be evaluated on a pass/fail basis under a facility clearance factor.[1] Id. at 38‑39. Quotations that passed the facility clearance factor would then be evaluated and rated under the following non‑price factors, listed here in descending order of importance: demonstrated corporate experience; technical approach; and management approach/key personnel.[2] Id. at 38. All non‑price factors when combined were considered significantly more important than price. Id. Quotations were due on August 14, 2023. AR, Tab 4, RFQ Amend. 0001 at 35. The agency received six quotations in response to the RFQ. AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at 2. All quotations satisfied an initial administrative documents and compliance review, and earned a rating of pass under the facility clearance factor.[3] Id. at 6. Therefore, all quotations were submitted to the TET for evaluation under the non‑price factors. Under the non‑price factors, the TET assigned quotations overall confidence ratings. The ratings were based on elements of the quotation that either positively or negatively affected the TET’s level of confidence in the vendor’s likely successful performance of the contract. See e.g. id. at 101‑105 (discussing elements of Guidehouse’s demonstrated corporate experience volume). For example, under the demonstrated corporate experience factor, the TET found that elements of Guidehouse’s quotation increased the agency’s confidence in Guidehouse’s ability to successfully perform the contract, while others decreased its confidence, cumulating in an overall rating of high confidence.