Protest alleging that agency erred in finding protester’s proposal ineligible is denied. The agency rejected the proposal because the protester proposed a software tool that was not included on an approved list of enterprise tools. The protester argued that its tool was not required to be on the list. GAO found that the solicitation plainly required that proposed tools be included on the approved list. The protester also objected to a significant weakness it received for not proposing sufficient staff. The protester contended that this weakness was derivative of the weakness it had received for the unapproved tool; the protester had proposed less staff because it was relying on its proposed software tool. But GAO found that while related, the two weaknesses addressed different aspects of the protester’s proposal.
The Army posted a request for task order proposals seeking information technology support services. NCI Information Systems, Inc. submitted a proposal. The Army found NCI’s proposal technical unacceptable. NCI’s approach relied on automation tool called EMPOWER. The Army found that this tool was not on the approved enterprise tools list and could not be used in the Army’s network. Following award to General Dynamics Technology Services, NCI protested, challenging the Army’s ineligibility determination.
The Army rejected NCI’s proposal because the EMPOWER tool was not an approved list of enterprise tools, and the proposal did not demonstrate that EMPOWER had an approved authority to operate (ATO) on the Army’s network. NCI argued that the solicitation did not require it demonstrate EMPOWER was on the approved list of enterprise tools or that the tool had an ATO.
GAO did not find these arguments compelling. With regard to the approved list, the solicitation required offerors to comply with an Army cybersecurity regulation. This regulation explicitly stated that products for the Army’s network had to on the approved list of enterprise tools. A plain reading of the solicitation and the implicated regulations indicated that a tool like EMPOWER would need to be on the approved list.
As to the ATO, NCI argued that the solicitation only required an ATO for non-government owned computing systems. NCI, however, claimed that EMPOWER was a software platform, not a non-government-owned computing system. But GAO noted that it was standard Army practice to include stand-alone software, like EMPOWER, in the definition of non-government-owned systems because the same security requirements apply to both software contained on hardware and stand-alone software.
Next, NCI objected to a significant weakness assigned to its proposal under the staffing approach subfactor. The Army acknowledged that NCI relied on the EMPOWER tool to make its staffing more affordable. But the Army found that NCI’s failure to demonstrate the effectiveness of the tool meant that it could not demonstrate that its staffing levels could meet the minimum needs of the task order. NCI argued that this weakness was really derivative of the weakness assigned under the technical approach subfactor for use of the EMPOWER tool.
But GAO reasoned that while both weaknesses were related to the EMPOWER tool, the evaluation under the staffing approach raised concerns about the lack of data to support the staffing efficiencies that NCI would derive from use of the EMPOWER tool and the risk of not having sufficient staff if the efficiencies proved illusory. The weakness assigned under the technical subfactor concerned NCI’s failure to address how it would implement the tool in the Army’ IT security framework. While there was certainly overlap, the concerns and associated weaknesses were, by their nature, different.
NCI is represented by Daniel P. Graham, Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, and Ryan D. Stalnaker of Vinson & Elkins LLP. The intervenor, General Dynamics, is represented by Carla J Weiss, Noah B. Bleicher, and Matthew L. Haws of Jenner & Block LLP. The agency is represented by Gwendolyn T.D. Franks and Jonathan A. Hardage of the Army. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
