Science Applications International Corporation

B-416780 Dec 17, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request (TORFP) No. ID07180010, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Army Research Development and Engineering Command, Communications-Electronics, Research, Development and Engineering Center, Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, for system innovation and engineering support. SAIC challenges the agency's evaluation and selection decision. 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: Science Applications International Corporation File: B-416780 Date: December 17, 2018 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and Elizabeth Ferrell, Esq., Larkin Ferrell LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. Amy A. Cook, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced quotation for award is unobjectionable where the agency's tradeoff decision was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under task order request (TORFP) No. ID07180010, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the Army Research Development and Engineering Command, Communications-Electronics, Research, Development and Engineering Center, Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, for system innovation and engineering support. SAIC challenges the agency's evaluation and selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2018, the agency issued the solicitation on an unrestricted basis under GSA's Alliant Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) vehicle. The procurement was conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single time-and-materials task order for a base year and four 1-year options. The solicitation provided that the task order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation was evaluated as offering the best value, based on a tradeoff between price and the following non-price factors, in descending order of importance: technical management approach and past experience. Non-price factors, when combined, were considered significantly more important than price, although the solicitation advised that price could become more important in the tradeoff analysis as the difference between the non-price factors became closer. TORFP at 67. The agency received quotations from two vendors, SAIC and CACI. After the agency evaluated quotations, the ratings for SAIC and CACI were as follows:   CACI SAIC Technical Excellent Excellent Past Experience Very Good Excellent Total Evaluated Price $350,253,209 $351,557,369 Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Award Decision, at 14. After the evaluation, the agency determined that CACI's quotation provided the best value to the government.1 This protest followed. DISCUSSION SAIC argues that GSA's award to CACI, a lower-rated, lower-priced vendor, was unreasonable because the agency failed to look behind the ratings to make a comparative assessment of the qualitative merits of the quotations. The protester also argues that the source selection decision was inadequately documented. Specifically, SAIC contends that the agency's source selection authority (SSA) failed to perform any qualitative comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the vendors' quotations under the technical management approach factor. The protester also argues that GSA improperly discounted SAIC's technical superiority under the past experience factor, thereby deviating from the solicitation's evaluation scheme. As discussed below, we find no merit to these arguments. Where, as here, a solicitation provides for issuance of a task order on a best-value tradeoff basis, it is the function of the SSA to perform a price/technical tradeoff, that is, to determine whether one proposal's (or quotation's) technical superiority is worth its higher price. Alliant Enter. JV, LLC, B-410352.5, B-410352.6, July 1, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 209 at 13.