B-296946, CACI Technologies, Inc., October 27, 2005

B-296946 Oct 27, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's decision not to award a contract to CACI pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8222-04-R-1000 under which the agency sought engineering and technical support services. CACI challenges the agency's determination that CACI's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296946, CACI Technologies, Inc., October 27, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: CACI Technologies, Inc. File: B-296946 Date: October 27, 2005 Richard J. Webber, Esq., Craig S. King, Esq., and Lisa K. Miller, Esq., Arent Fox PLLC, for the protester. Lt. Col. Sharon K. Sughru, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as failing to comply with mandatory solicitation requirements regarding engineering services and, on that basis, properly determined that protester's proposal was ineligible for award on the basis of initial offers. DECISION CACI Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's decision not to award a contract to CACI pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8222-04-R-1000 under which the agency sought engineering and technical support services. CACI challenges the agency's determination that CACI's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued RFP No. FA8222-04-R-1000 in October 2004, seeking proposals to –provide design and engineering/technical support services for the Department of Defense weapon systems, components, and support equipment.—[1] Agency Report, Tab 8, Performance Work Specification (PWS), at 7. The solicitation contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contracts[2] with 5-year ordering periods and 7-year performance periods and an aggregate ceiling value of $1.9 billion. The solicitation identified a minimum of 43 specific capabilities for which offerors were required to discuss acceptable technical approaches.[3] In this regard, the RFP provided that offerors –must indicate capabilities in at least one sub-element for each systems/applications grouping (A through I) for each functional category (1 through 5).—[4] Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 81 (bold in original). The solicitation directed each offeror to –[d]escribe your team's engineering, technical capability and expertise for each functional category and system/application grouping listed— and provided that, in doing so, the proposal must reference –the alpha and numeric indicator— associated with the particular capability being addressed. Id. With regard to evaluation of proposals, the RFP establishing the following evaluation factors: mission capability,[5] past performance, proposal risk, and cost/price.[6] Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 93-94. Under the mission capability factor, the solicitation provided: The offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the technical approach demonstrates their ability to meet the full range of DESP II requirements. Their proposal will be evaluated to assure that it clearly demonstrates the offeror's ability to provide the skills, experience, competencies, and capabilities required. Agency Report, Tab 8, RFP, at 94-95. Finally, under the heading –Basis for Contract Award,— the solicitation stated: –In order for a proposal to result in an awardable contract, it must at least meet all minimum technical requirements.— Id. at 92-93. On or before the November 8 closing date, proposals were submitted by 29 offerors, including CACI. The proposals were subsequently evaluated with regard to, among other things, the extent each proposal adequately described the offeror's capabilities to perform the 43 mandatory requirements.[7] In evaluating CACI's compliance with the requirements associated with functional category 5, environmental, health, and safety, the agency concluded that CACI's proposal failed to address the engineering capabilities sought and, instead, only discussed construction-type capabilities. In this regard, the PWS expressly cautioned offerors as follows: –Construction cannot be the main purpose of the task order, but rather incidental work required for successful completion of the task order.— Agency Report, Tab 8, PWS, at 6.