IBM Corporation

B-415575 Jan 19, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IBM Corporation, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to Accenture Federal Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP10-17-R-0031, to provide data center support services (DCSS) and other related services. IBM protests that the agency failed to properly investigate alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs); improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals; and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination. 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 decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  IBM Corporation File:  B-415575 Date:  January 19, 2018 David W. Burgett, Esq., Michael D. McGill, Esq., Brendan M. Lill, Esq., Nicole D. Picard, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Monica R. Sterling, Esq., and Lauren E. Harrison, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Accenture Federal Services, Inc., the intervenor. Kevin N. Misener, Esq., Tiffany Holloman, Esq., and Matthew Faust, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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.  Agency reasonably considered the potential for organizational conflicts of interest related to the awardee’s proposal. 2.  Agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals under the non-cost/price evaluation factors was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and its conclusion that the protester’s proposed approach created substantial risk and merited a lower rating than the awardee’s proposal was reasonable. 3.  The source selection authority’s best-value tradeoff decision was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, acknowledged that awardee’s evaluated cost/price was substantially higher than the protester’s proposed cost/price, and reasonably determined that the awardee’s higher-rated, higher-priced proposal offered the best value to the government. DECISION IBM Corporation, of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to Accenture Federal Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP10-17-R-0031, to provide data center support services (DCSS) and other related services.  IBM protests that the agency failed to properly investigate alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs); improperly evaluated offerors’ technical proposals; and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 11, 2017, the agency issued RFP No. HSBP10-17-R-0031,[1] seeking proposals to provide DCSS and related services[2] “for all Divisions and Offices of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) both in Washington, DC and its regional locations and data centers.”[3]  AR, Tab 2, PWS, at 3.  The solicitation provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis and established the following three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  mission suitability (oral presentation);[4] technical/management approach;[5] and cost/price.[6]  With regard to evaluation under the mission suitability and technical/management factors, the solicitation stated that the agency “will consider the Offeror’s approach and the risks associated with the approaches proposed,” and make “confidence assessments” regarding the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and the likelihood of successful contract performance, assigning ratings under each factor of:  high confidence, some confidence, or no confidence.[7]  RFP Sections L&M at 16.  The solicitation did not contemplate, or provide for, factor ratings other than the confidence assessments. The solicitation established a two-step process under which the agency would first evaluate each offeror’s oral presentation regarding mission suitability and, thereafter, would either:  invite the offeror to participate in step two by submitting technical/management and cost/price proposals; or advise the offeror that “it is unlikely to be a viable competitor.”[8]  Id.