XL Associates, Inc. (70CDCR18Q00000018)

B-417426.3 Jan 16, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights XL Associates, Inc. d/b/a XLA, of Vienna, VA, protests the issuance of a call order under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to CapGemini Government Solutions, LLC (CapGemini), of McLean, Virginia, by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70CDCR18Q00000018, for professional support services to conduct call center operations. XLA challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation and selection decision, and argues that the agency failed to meaningfully consider CapGemini's alleged impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from CapGemini's current performance of a separate call order. 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:  XL Associates, Inc. d/b/a XLA File:  B-417426.3 Date:  January 16, 2020 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson-US, LLP, for the protester. H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, CapGemini Government Solutions, LLC, for the intervenor. Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., and Kasey Podzius, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 1.  Protest challenging the evaluation of its own quotation under various non-price factors and selection decision is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest asserting agency failed to meaningfully consider an alleged impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where the contracting officer gave meaningful consideration to the alleged conflict and reasonably concluded that no OCI or potential for an OCI existed. DECISION XL Associates, Inc. d/b/a XLA, of Vienna, VA, protests the issuance of a call order under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to CapGemini Government Solutions, LLC (CapGemini), of McLean, Virginia, by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70CDCR18Q00000018, for professional support services to conduct call center operations.  XLA challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and selection decision, and argues that the agency failed to meaningfully consider CapGemini’s alleged impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from CapGemini’s current performance of a separate call order.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) within ICE is responsible for promoting public safety and national security by removing illegal aliens from the United States through the fair enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFQ, amend 1, encl. 1, Statement of Work (SOW), at 2.[1]  In that capacity, the office operates the ERO Contact Center of Operations (ECCO).  Id.  The ECCO serves as a conduit for reporting a wide range of issues that are central to the efficient operations of ICE enforcement and detention apparatus.  Id.  The purpose of this procurement is to obtain professional support services for call center operations and includes telephonic and non-telephonic responsibilities.[2]  Id.  The call order solicitation was issued on November 30, 2018, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 8.405-3, to holders of the agency’s Business and Programs Solutions for Law Enforcement (BAPSLE) BPA for support services to ICE’s ECCO.  AR, Tab 1, RFQ, at 1.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a single hybrid fixed-price/labor-hour call order with one 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods.  Id.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach and understanding (technical approach); management approach and capabilities (management approach); past performance; and price.  AR, Tab 10, RFQ, amend. 1, encl. 3, Evaluation and Instruction, at 7.  The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id.  The RFQ stated that the non-price factors would be assigned confidence ratings while a price analysis would be performed to assess whether the proposed price was fair, reasonable, and balanced.  Id.