Decision Released: COF Missile Defense Agency Information Technology and Cybersecurity Management (“ITCM”) protest

Background

On 27 December 2021, MDA issued Solicitation No. HQ0858-22-R-0002 for ITCM services under its Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Supports (TEAMS)-Next series of contracts.  See Pl.’s Mot. J. Admin. Rec. (“Pl.’s MJAR”) at 1, 3, ECF No. 30.  Solicitation No. HQ0858-22-R-0002 seeks “to procure ITCM services in support of MDA’s ‘mission to develop, test, and field an integrated, layered Missile Defense System (MDS) to defend the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy missiles in all phases of flight.’”  Id. at 3 n.2.  The Solicitation merges two existing contracts into the new TEAMS-Next ITCM contract.  See id. at 1.  Fives Stones performs one of the existing contracts—an architecture and network operations support services contract—while System High Corporation, a joint venture of Two Knights,1 performs the cyberspace mission support and management services contract.  Gov’t’s Cross MJAR at 3–4 (first citing Admin. R. (“AR”) Tab 145b at 17426 (Contracting Officer Statement of Facts); then citing AR Tab 16a at 1541, 44 (Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors); and then citing AR Tab 11 at 463–64 (Solicitation Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors)), ECF No. 33.  Proposals were to address six evaluation factors:  (1) Mission Capability; (2) Information Management and Control Plan; (3) Organizational Conflict of Interest Management Plan; (4) Facility Clearance; (5) Past Performance; and (6) Cost and Price.  AR Tab 16a at 155361 (Solicitation Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).  Plaintiff’s challenges relate to (1) Mission Capability; and (5) Past Performance …

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges MDA “departed from the stated evaluation scheme, applied unstated evaluation criteria, and failed to recognize and consider pertinent information” in assessing 2KD’s MCS2 proposal submission, leading MDA to improperly rate its MCS2 approach.  Pl.’s MJAR at 12.  Plaintiff alleges MDA impermissibly examined “whether 2KD proposed how to design, develop, or, . . . ‘accomplish,’ a hybrid cloud environment.”  Id. at 13.  Plaintiff reasons, “[n]either the Instructions nor the Evaluation Criteria indicated [MDA] would evaluate whether an offeror proposed how to ‘accomplish’ a hybrid cloud environment . . . yet [MDA] assigned 2KD a Deficiency for not having done so.”  Id. at 13–14.  Plaintiff relies on the government’s position at the GAO to show MDA applied unstated criterion in its evaluation by using the term “accomplish” in describing the MCS2 objectives.  See id. at 14–15.  Plaintiff compares MCS2, Element 1 and MCS3 – Architecture and Engineering to demonstrate the Solicitation contemplated offerors proposing their approach to network engineering in another part of the Solicitation, MCS3, arguing “[a]ssisting in the design and development of cloud environments . . . is closer to what was required under MCS3 [rather than MCS2.”  Id. at 15–16.  Plaintiff also argues MDA “ignored relevant information . . . within 2KD’s proposal” because 2KD described “its approach to and understanding of providing assistance and oversight management of the IT environment described in MCS2, Element 1, which included hybrid cloud environments.”  Id. at 19.  Specifically, plaintiff points to the following in its proposal as “describing its approach and understanding in detail,” noting that this “approach to supporting network operations involved ‘oversee[ing] all network operations functions’”: Figure III.2-1 summarized our overall approach to executing MDA CIO’s Network …

Decision

Plaintiff Two Knights Defense, LLC (“Two Knights” or “2KD”) brings this post-award bid protest challenging the United States Department of Defense’s Missile Defense Agency (“MDA”) award of a contract for Information Technology and Cybersecurity Management (“ITCM”) to defendant-intervenor Five Stones Research Corp.  (“Five Stones” or  “5SRC”).  This protest is directly related to a prior bid protest, Two Knights Defense, LLC v. United States (“Two Knights I”), Case No. 22-1932, which was dismissed in May 2023, after MDA undertook voluntary corrective action.  Following the government’s corrective action and subsequent re-award of the contract to Five Stones, Two Knights now files this second bid protest arguing MDA erred in its assessment of Two Knights’ revised proposal regarding the “Mission Capability” and Past Performance Factors.  Two Knights asserts MDA deviated from the Solicitation’s evaluation criteria and failed to consider certain proposal information from Two Knights.  For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff Two Knights’ Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (MJAR), grants the government’s Cross-MJAR, and grants Five Stone’s Cross-MJAR.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story