IAP World Services, Inc.

B-415678 Feb 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IAP World Services, Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI Technologies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W56KGU-17-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen, for operational, technical, and fielding support in the engineering, integration, fabrication, fielding, sustainment, training, and material acquisition of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment and systems, and foreign military sales equipment and systems. The protester challenges the fairness and reasonableness of the agency's proposal evaluations. 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:  IAP World Services, Inc. File:  B-415678 Date:  February 12, 2018 J. Alex Ward, Esq., Ethan E. March, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., James M. Larkin, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., Larkin Ferrell LLP, for CACI Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Rachel E. Woods, Esq., and Joseph Beazley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where record shows that agency’s proposal evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION IAP World Services, Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI Technologies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W56KGU-17-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen, for operational, technical, and fielding support in the engineering, integration, fabrication, fielding, sustainment, training, and material acquisition of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment and systems, and foreign military sales equipment and systems.  The protester challenges the fairness and reasonableness of the agency’s proposal evaluations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RTOP was issued to holders of the unrestricted suite of the Army’s Rapid Response Third Generation (R2-3G) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity service contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTOP amend. 2 at 1.  The cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost task order, with a base period of 12 months with two 12-month options, would be issued to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering two non-price factors--technical and past performance--and cost/price.  Id. at 1, 21.  Technical was more important than past performance and past performance was more important than cost/price.  Id. at 21.  The technical factor contained the following four subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, management plan, key personnel, and quality assurance surveillance plan.  Id.  As relevant here, under the technical approach subfactor, offerors were to describe their approach to meeting performance work statement (PWS) paragraphs 1.2 through 1.8 and 3.0, as well as their associate subparagraphs.  Id. at 22.  The solicitation further stated that the agency would evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which it demonstrated a clear understanding of all of the task order requirements and whether all of the requirements of the PWS had been completely considered, defined, and satisfied.  Id. at 22-23.  To be eligible for award, a proposal was required to achieve a rating of no less than acceptable under the technical factor, which required a rating of no less than acceptable under each of the four technical subfactors.  Id.  An acceptable proposal was one that met the requirements of the RTOP and indicated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, where the strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or have little or no impact on contract performance.  Id. at 25.  An unacceptable proposal was one that did not meet the requirements and contained one or more deficiencies.  Id. The PWS contained the following relevant provisions.  With respect to security matters, the PWS advised offerors that Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, is used in solicitations and contracts that authorize contractor personnel to accompany U.S.