Saliense Consulting, LLC (70RTAC24Q00000089)

B-423083.3 Dec 06, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SOFITC3, LLC, a small business of Piscataway, New Jersey, protests the scope of the agency's proposed corrective action announced in response to SOFITC3's previous protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Delviom, LLC, a small business of Ashburn, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RTAC24Q00000089, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for cybersecurity governance and compliance. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the scope of the agency's proposed corrective action. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SOFITC3, LLC File: B-423083.3 Date: December 6, 2024 Jeff M. Chiow Esq., Timothy M. McLister, Esq., Jordan M. Malone, Esq., and Olivia C. Bellini, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Brian C. Habib, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the scope of the agency’s corrective action taken in response to previous post-award protests is dismissed as legally insufficient where the protester’s allegations are based on impermissible speculation or a facially unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation’s evaluation scheme. DECISION SOFITC3, LLC, a small business of Piscataway, New Jersey, protests the scope of the agency’s proposed corrective action announced in response to SOFITC3’s previous protest challenging the issuance of a task order to Delviom, LLC, a small business of Ashburn, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RTAC24Q00000089, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for cybersecurity governance and compliance. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the scope of the agency’s proposed corrective action. BACKGROUND Relevant to the issues presented in this protest, the RFQ, which was issued on August 20, 2024, and subsequently amended four times, contemplated a multi-phased quotation and evaluation process. B-423083.2, Electronic Protest Docketing System (Dkt.) No. 9, Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3a, RFQ Amend. 2, Attach. 1, at 6-19. In phase 1, vendors were required to provide certain administrative information, including evidence that the prime contractor or all teaming partners proposed in a contractor team arrangement (CTA) possess active facility clearance at the top secret level. Id. at 7. Following the agency’s phase 1 evaluation, vendors would receive a “mandatory [d]own [s]elect [n]otification.” Vendors receiving a pass rating from the agency would be invited to proceed to phase 2 quotation submission, while vendors receiving a fail rating would be notified by the agency that they were ineligible for award and removed from further consideration. Id.; see also id. at 16. In phase 2, those vendors that received a pass rating for phase 1 were to provide relevant prior corporate experience information for the prime contractor or all teaming partners proposed in a CTA. Id. at 8. Following the agency’s phase 2 evaluation, all vendors would receive an “[a]dvisory [d]own [s]elect [n]otification.” Unlike the mandatory phase 1 down selection notification, where vendors would either be permitted to remain in the competition or would be excluded from further participation, the phase 2 down selection notification would only be a recommendation whether to proceed with a phase 3 submission based on whether the vendor was evaluated as being among the most highly rated vendors under phase 2. Specifically, the RFQ explained that: After the Government has completed Phase 2 evaluations, all [vendors] will be notified in writing by the [contracting officer] of the Government’s advisory recommendation to proceed or not to proceed with Phase 3 submissions. [Vendors] who are rated most highly for Factor 2 will be advised to proceed to Phase 3 of the [vendor] submission process. [Vendors] who were not among the most highly rated will be advised that they are unlikely to be viable competitors, along with the general basis for the Government’s advisory recommendation. The intent of this advice is to minimize development costs for those [vendors] with little to no chance of receiving an award. However, the Government’s advice will be a recommendation only, and those [vendors] who are advised not to proceed may elect to continue their participation in the procurement. Id.