Updated March 18, 2022 “DIGEST - 1. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s corporate experience is dismissed where the protester’s allegations, which rely upon assumptions and characterizations concerning the solicitation that are not supported by those documents, do not establish a valid basis of protest. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates the agency’s conclusions were reasonable.” “DISCUSSION - Using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation on May 5, 2021, to vendors holding contracts under the General Services Administration’s Alliant 2 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity governmentwide acquisition contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, RFP at 4, 32.1 The RFP seeks IV&V services for the systems engineering division of CBP’s office of acquisition to verify and validate that all products and systems acquired for border control and security at and between United States ports of entry comply with CBP requirements and that program management is performed in an effective and efficient manner. AR, Tab 5, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The solicitation anticipated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a base year with four 12-month options. RFP at 5. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: corporate experience, technical/management approach, small business utilization plan, and cost/price. Id. at 36-37, 44. The technical/management approach factor included three equally-weighted subtopics: prior team experience, management and staffing plan, and technical understanding. Id. at 41, 44. The three non-price factors, when combined, were more important than cost/price. Id. at 44. The solicitation also provided, however, that between proposals of substantially equal technical merit, cost/price will become a more significant factor. Id. It also advised that the contracting officer or source selection authority “has the right to determine whether two or more technical proposals are ‘substantially equal’” or “whether any differences in technical weighing are ‘significant’ for purposes of evaluating the overall merits of proposals.” Id. The evaluation was to be conducted in two phases using an “advisory down-select” process. Id. at 41-42. In the first phase, proposals were to be evaluated under the first technical factor--corporate experience; following the phase one evaluation, the agency would issue an “advisory notification.” Id. at 42. The most highly rated offerors would be advised to proceed to the second phase during which vendors would be evaluated under the other factors--technical/management approach, small business utilization plan, and cost/price. Id. The solicitation also provided that, for “a holistic evaluation,” the rating determined for a vendor’s proposal in phase one for the corporate experience factor would be considered as part of the phase two evaluation. Id. Vendors not among the most highly rated after the phase one evaluation, would be advised that they were unlikely to be viable competitors. Id. The intent of the notification was to minimize proposal development costs for vendors with little to no chance of receiving an award. Id. Under the technical/management factor, the agency would evaluate the three subtopics holistically and assign each a risk rating of low, medium, or high risk, representing the agency’s confidence that the offeror understands the requirement and will be successful in performing the work…” “DECISION - NTT Data Services Federal Government, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to American Systems Corporation (ASC), of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B02C21R00000069, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for independent verification and validation (IV&V) services. NTT, which is the incumbent contractor for the requirement, argues that the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were unreasonable. The protest is denied in part, and dismissed in part. Access the full 18-page decision here. Download the decision here. Updated January 26, 2022  G2X TAKE: The protest by NTT DATA related to this 5-year task with the Department of Homeland Security’s US Customs and Border Protection to provide Independent Verification and Validation Services has now been denied.  No details are available at this time.  Details on the award to AMERICAN SYSTEMS, who beat out two other bidders, are available here.  Posted October 19, 2021  G2X TAKE: A protest has been levied by NTT DATA related to this 5-year task with the Department of Homeland Security’s US Customs and Border Protection to provide Independent Verification and Validation Services.   No details are available as to the grounds for the protest at this time but they will be shared here as they are available. The listed due date for a decision is no later than January 20, 2022.  Details on the award to AMERICAN SYSTEMS, who beat out two other bidders, are available here.