Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

B-417418,B-417418.2,B-417418.3 Jul 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA19K0006, by the General Services Administration (GSA), for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) services in support of the Department of the Air Force (AF), Air Combat Command (ACC). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the source selection decision. 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: Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File: B-417418; B-417418.2; B-417418.3 Date: July 3, 2019 Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., and Peter B. Terenzio, III, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., and Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Venable, LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where the protester failed to demonstrate that, but for the apparent errors in its evaluation, it would have had a substantial possibility of receiving the award. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA19K0006, by the General Services Administration (GSA), for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) services in support of the Department of the Air Force (AF), Air Combat Command (ACC). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the proposals and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2018, GSA issued the TOR, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to vendors holding indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the GSA One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services unrestricted pool 1. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1, 3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, TOR, amend. 4, at B-1. The TOR anticipated the issuance of a single cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options to provide ISR support services to ACC and subordinate organizations.1 TOR at F-1, C-1-C-2. The overall objective of the task order is to provide the AF ACC with a "highly effective and efficient intelligence gathering, analysis, and distribution program, as well as to provide training to facilitate ISR operations." Id. at C-4. The task order consolidates requirements from four prior task orders, two of which were performed by BAH and Leidos, respectively, and added additional requirements to account for any anticipated growth or programmed expanded operations.2 COS at 1-2. Because the TOR consolidated requirements previously provided under separate contracts, the TOR explained that not all organizations and subtasks would require support at award, and that staffing would be phased in over time as the existing support services contracts expired until full operational capability (FOC) is achieved.3 TOR at C-9-C-10. The TOR anticipated award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following factors, in descending order of importance: technical and management approach; key personnel and project staffing; and corporate experience.4 All non-cost or price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price. Id. at M-1, M-3. GSA received timely written proposals from BAH and Leidos, who both participated in oral presentations.5 COS at 4. A technical evaluation board (TEB) was established to evaluate the technical proposals.6 AR, Tab 14, TEB Report at 2-3. The cost/price proposals were evaluated by the contracting officer (CO). COS at 6; AR, Tab 15, Award Decision Document (ADD) at 32-33. The results of the technical and cost/price proposal evaluation were as follows:   Leidos BAH Overall Technical Excellent Good     Technical and Management Approach Excellent Good     Key Personnel and Project Staffing Excellent Good     Corporate Experience Good Acceptable Total Proposed Cost7 $922,494,581 $941,598,486 AR, Tab 15, ADD at 34. The CO, acting as the source selection authority (SSA), performed a comparative assessment of the proposals and concluded that no tradeoff was necessary because Leidos' proposal was higher rated and lower priced than BAH's. Id. at 33-34.