Enterprise Services, LLC

B-410212.2 Jan 26, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HP Enterprise Services, LLC (HPES), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA) award of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. E200540.00 for performance of assessment and certification activities to support DISA in countering cyber security threats. HPES protests that the agency's evaluation was flawed in that it failed to reasonably consider BAH's alleged intent to hire the "vast majority" of HPES's incumbent personnel, and reflected improperly-assigned strengths in BAH's proposal and/or improperly-omitted strengths in HPES's proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: HP Enterprise Services, LLC File: B-410212.2 Date: January 26, 2015 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., Charlotte E. Gillingham, Esq., and Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Cameron S. Hamrick, Esq., and Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., an intervenor. JoAnn W. Melesky, Esq., and Colleen A. Eagan, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency failed to properly consider awardee’s intent to hire the “vast majority” of protester’s incumbent personnel and “slash” their compensation is denied where awardee’s proposal contemplated hiring incumbent employees as only one element of its multi‑faceted staffing strategy. 2. Protester’s assertions that the agency improperly assigned strengths to the awardee’s proposal and/or failed to properly assign strengths to the protester’s proposal reflect disagreement with the agency’s judgments which, by itself, provides no basis for sustaining the protest. DECISION HP Enterprise Services, LLC (HPES), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA) award of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. E200540.00 for performance of assessment and certification activities to support DISA in countering cyber security threats.[1] HPES protests that the agency’s evaluation was flawed in that it failed to reasonably consider BAH’s alleged intent to hire the “vast majority” of HPES’s incumbent personnel, and reflected improperly-assigned strengths in BAH’s proposal and/or improperly-omitted strengths in HPES’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 7, 2014, DISA published the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals from holders of ENCORE II contracts[2] to provide technical support services for DISA and other DII users[3] in obtaining and maintaining accreditation of IT systems.[4] PWS at 1-2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order for a 1‑year base period, four 1-year option periods, and one 6-month option period.[5] The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best value basis considering the following evaluation factors: security,[6] technical/management approach,[7] and price.[8] AR, Tab 2, RFP, at 3-5. On March 13, four offerors, including HPES and BAH, submitted their initial proposals.[9] Thereafter, the agency conducted three rounds of discussions, sending various evaluation notices (ENs) to each offeror.[10] On July 9, HPES and BAH submitted their final proposal revisions (FPRs). MOL/COS at 12‑13. On July 31, the agency selected BAH for award. On August 11, HPES filed a protest with our Office challenging that award. On August 26, the agency stated that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating the proposals. On September 2, we dismissed HPES’s August 11 protest as academic, pending the agency’s reevaluation. Thereafter, the agency reviewed all of the evaluation notices and the offerors’ responses thereto, and reevaluated the FPRs. Id. In its reevaluation, the agency considered whether the technical/management portion of each offeror’s proposal reflected strengths,[11] weaknesses, or deficiencies, and assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under each of the four technical/management approach subfactors.[12] Id. at 14-16. In evaluating BAH’s proposal, the agency identified five strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies. AR, Tab 16, SRD, at 19-41. In evaluating HPES’s proposal, the agency identified one strength and no weaknesses or deficiencies. Id.