CGI Federal, Inc.

B-410714 Jan 28, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CGI Federal Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to CACI Technologies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. SSESR-2018, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for information technology services. CGI alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated CACI's proposal with regard to the solicitation's place of performance and security requirements. 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: CGI Federal Inc. File: B-410714 Date: January 28, 2015 Neil H. O’Donnell, Esq., Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Oliya S. Zamaray, Esq., and Katherine L. Pohl, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC, for the protester. Craig S. King, Esq., Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq., and Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for CACI Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Margaret Talbot-Bedard, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of whether an awardee’s proposal met a solicitation’s place of performance and security requirements is denied where the record reflects the awardee’s proposal included information from which the agency reasonably could conclude the requirements were met and that the evaluation was otherwise reasonable and consistent with the solicitation terms. DECISION CGI Federal Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to CACI Technologies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. SSESR-2018, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for information technology services. CGI alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated CACI’s proposal with regard to the solicitation’s place of performance and security requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2014, the agency issued the solicitation to firms holding contracts under the Software and Systems Engineering Services Next Generation (SSES NexGen) multiple award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract program. Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Legal Memorandum (CCOSLM) at 5. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a base period of 1 year and a 1-year option period. TOR at 1. The solicitation advised that the task order was “being competed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth under the SSES NexGen Basic Contract.” Id. Award was to be made on a best value tradeoff basis, considering the following two factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical/risk and cost/price. Id. at 14, 17. The solicitation provided that proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings under the technical/risk factor and that a proposal must receive a rating of at least acceptable in order to be considered for award. Id. at 14. For the technical risk factor, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the extent to which a proposal “complies with . . . all requirements set forth in [the] TOR, PWS [performance work statement], Appendices, Exhibits, and Attachments.” TOR at 14. In addition, the solicitation identified six “chapters” under which technical proposals would be evaluated, the following two of which are relevant here: Chapter 5 -- Requirements Compliance All Task Order PWS paragraphs on TOR Appendix A are checked as “The offeror understands and will comply with the referenced Task Order PWS requirement.” Chapter 6 -- DD [Department of Defense] Form 254 The offeror demonstrates that it possesses the security requirements needed to successfully perform. Id. at 16 (typeface as in original). As shown above, chapter five contemplated an evaluation of how an offeror completed appendix A to the solicitation. This appendix was titled “PWS compliance matrix,” and it listed each PWS section, together with check boxes for offerors to indicate whether they understood and would comply with the PWS requirements. TOR, app. A, PWS Compliance Matrix. As also shown above, chapter six contemplated an evaluation of whether an offeror met the solicitation’s security requirements. As related to this evaluation, PWS appendix G set forth various security requirements, including one providing that “[t]he Contractor shall be required to have a SECRET Facility Clearance with SECRET safeguarding capabilities.” PWS, app. G, Security Requirements, at 1.