About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-419350.3,B-419350.4 Jun 16, 2021 1 (2021-06-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaomay0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 1Oo U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE A Century of Non-Partisan Fact-Based Work 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date blow was subject to a Decision GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Agile-Bot II, LLC File: B-419350.3; B-419350.4 Date: June 16, 2021 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Chelsea B. Knudson, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for SecuriGence LLC, the intervenor. Geraldine Chanel, Esq., and ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that the agency performed an unequal evaluation is denied where the record shows that the difference in the evaluation stemmed from differences in quotations. 3. Protest challenging the agency's price realism analysis is denied where the agency followed the stated evaluation criteria and reasonably exercised its discretion in its analysis. DECISION Agile-Bot II, LLC, a small business joint venture, of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to SecuriGence LLC, a small business, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HRO01120Q0002, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), for multi-network support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated quotations. The protester also argues that the agency's price realism analysis with regard to the awardee's quotation was unreasonable. We deny the protest.