NCI Information Systems, Inc.

B-412870.2 Oct 14, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to HP Enterprise Services, LLC (HPES), of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Interior under request for proposals (RFP) No. D15PS00661, for information technology (IT) services. The protester argues that the agency failed to consider an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and challenges the agency's evaluation. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  NCI Information Systems, Inc. File:  B-412870.2 Date:  October 14, 2016 Daniel P. Graham, Esq., Bryan T. Bunting, Esq., and Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., Tara L. Ward, Esq., Gary S. Ward, Esq., and Nina S. Rustgi, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for HP Enterprise Services, LLC, an intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that agency failed to consider unmitigated organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is sustained where the agency failed to document its consideration of an impaired objectivity OCI identified by the awardee in its proposal.  2.  Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s price realism is sustained where the various analyses undertaken by the agency did not support the agency’s conclusion that awardee’s price was consistent with its technical approach. DECISION NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to HP Enterprise Services, LLC (HPES), of Herndon, Virginia, by the Department of the Interior under request for proposals (RFP) No. D15PS00661, for information technology (IT) services.  The protester argues that the agency failed to consider an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and challenges the agency’s evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The National Guard is a joint activity of the Department of Defense (DoD) comprised of reserve components of the United States Army and United States Air Force, the Army National Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG).  RFP,[1] Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  The National Guard Bureau (NGB), located in the Washington, DC area, known as the National Capital Region (NCR), is responsible for administering programs for the development and maintenance of the ARNG and ANG units in the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.  Id. This procurement was conducted by the Department of the Interior (Interior) under the agency’s franchise fund authority for the NGB.  Agency Report (AR), Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP was issued by the Department of the Interior on September 4, 2015, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms that had been issued a Department of the Army, Information Technology Enterprise Solutions - 2 Services (ITES-2S), indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, for IT services[2] to be provided to the ARNG, ANG, and other DOD agencies operating within the NCR.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed-price task order with optional time-and-materials and fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) to be exercised at the discretion of the government.[3]  Id.  The period of performance was to include one 12-month base period and three 12-month options and a final option period to end in April 2020.  RFP, PWS at 8.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering the following factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFP at 39.  The technical factor contained two subfactors (technical capability and management approach) and was more important than past performance.  Id.  When combined, the technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than price.  Id.  As relevant here, the solicitation stated that “[t]he [g]overnment reserves the right to evaluate price realism, should it be determined necessary.”  Id. at 41.  The solicitation also stated that the government was more concerned with obtaining superior technical performance than lowest price.  Id. at 39.  As relevant here, the solicitation required that offerors submit under the technical factor’s management approach subfactor, a work breakdown structure (WBS) that identified labor categories and estimated hours for each labor category necessary for the successful completion of the effort.  Id.