“DIGEST – Request for reconsideration is denied where the request does not demonstrate that our decision contained either factual or legal error.”
“BACKGROUND … Thirteen offerors, including Triple Point and Zero Trust, submitted proposals prior to the August 17, 2020, closing date. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. On October 1, NIH notified Triple Point that award had been made to Zero Trust, in the amount of $1,666,692, as offering the best value to the agency. Id.
On October 2, Triple Point requested a debriefing. Req. for Dismissal at 1. On October 16, NIH provided the firm a brief explanation of award pursuant to FAR section 13.106‑3. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, Brief Explanation of Award at 1. The correspondence communicated that Triple Point’s proposal was evaluated as technically inferior, and at a higher evaluated price, when compared to the proposal of Zero Trust. Id. at 2.
On October 23, Triple Point challenged the award in a protest filed with our Office. The firm argued that “[t]he Government did not follow the evaluation process or adhere to the evaluation factors” as delineated in the RFP. Protest at 1. According to Triple Point, NIH’s failure to follow or adhere to the evaluation factors resulted “in the partial evaluation of proposals and/or omission of information material to the Technical Rating, scoring, and award decision.” Id. The firm did not support its argument with any details demonstrating how the agency evaluated any proposal inconsistently with the RFP. See id.
On November 12, NIH requested dismissal of the protest, asserting that Triple Point’s argument amounted to speculation and was subject to dismissal under our Bid Protest Regulations. Req. for Dismissal at 2 (arguing that the protest should be dismissed under 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4)). NIH argued that the protest lacked any factual support. Id. at 2-3. In response, Triple Point argued that Zero Trust did not have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) as required by the RFP. Triple Point Response, Nov. 15, 2020….”
“DISCUSSION – Triple Point argues that it did not know the basis for its protest until after receiving the brief explanation of award, and it also would have raised arguments in a “piecemeal” fashion if it had filed its protest within 10 days of the October 1 notice of award and then revised its protest allegations with new information learned from the brief explanation of award. Id. The firm also argues that the agency has never addressed the alleged problem with Zero Trust’s SAM registration…
Our review confirms that Triple Point filed its protest more than 10 days after it learned the basis for its challenge. The protest complained that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals by not following or adhering to the evaluation factors. Protest at 1. The challenge is not based on any information learned in the brief explanation of award because it does not cite or identify any information contained in the explanation as the underlying reasons supporting its general challenge. Id. Thus, because Triple Point first learned the results of the agency’s evaluation on October 1 (i.e., when it received the unsuccessful offeror notice), its protest generally challenging the evaluation results must have been within 10 days of that date (i.e., October 13). Because the protest was not filed until October 23, the protest was untimely and properly dismissed…
Second, Triple Point’s complaint that NIH has not responded to the protester’s argument raised in its response to the dismissal request (i.e., that Zero Trust lacked an active SAM registration) does not provide us a basis to reverse or modify our decision. This argument does not show that our decision contains a factual or legal error because it does not demonstrate the decision erroneously dismissed the protest as untimely. A‑B Computer Sols., supra. While the firm may still have some concern regarding Zero Trust’s SAM registration status and seek the agency’s views on that matter, this argument has no bearing on whether our Office appropriately dismissed the October 23 protest as untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss this argument because it does not facially allege that our decision contained a factual or legal error…”
“DECISION – Triple Point Security, Inc., of Leesburg, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision, Triple Point Security, Inc., B-419375, Dec. 7, 2020 (unpublished decision), wherein our Office dismissed its protest challenging the award of a contract to Zero Trust, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75N95020R00009, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), for cybersecurity services.
We deny the request for reconsideration.”
Access the full 5-page decision here.
Related Item
Update: Protest of NIH NCATS Cybersecurity Services Program Support IDIQ dismissed – December 2020
