CSRA LLC

B-417635,B-417635.2,B-417635.3 Sep 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CSRA LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to American Technology Solutions International Corporation (ATSI), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 05GAOA19Q0014, issued by the Government Accountability Office for information technology (IT) operations, engineering, and enhancement support services (OEESS). CSRA contends the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and resulting award decision were improper. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  CSRA LLC File:  B-417635; B-417635.2; B-417635.3 Date:  September 11, 2019 Michael F. Mason, Esq., Stacy M. Hadeka, Esq., and Adilene Rosales, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Lawrence P. Block, Esq., Elizabeth G. Leavy, Esq., and William T. Kirkwood, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for American Technology Solutions International Corporation, the intervenor. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., Gary R. Allen, Esq., and John A. Bielec, Esq., Government Accountability Office, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., 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 alleging inadequate and misleading discussions is dismissed as an untimely challenge to the scope of discussions where the amended solicitation stated that the agency’s discussions would not include vendors’ oral presentations, and the protester failed to challenge the grounds rules for the competition by the next closing date. 2.  Protest alleging the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ technical and management quotations was unequal and disparate is denied where the protester’s assertions are not supported by the record. 3.  Protest challenging the strengths assigned to awardee’s quotation as improper double-counting is denied where the advantages were properly counted under multiple evaluation criteria and/or double-counted for all vendors. 4.  Protest challenging the best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the decision was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. DECISION CSRA LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to American Technology Solutions International Corporation (ATSI), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 05GAOA19Q0014, issued by the Government Accountability Office for information technology (IT) operations, engineering, and enhancement support services (OEESS).  CSRA contends the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations and resulting award decision were improper. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on February 13, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of National Institutes of Health, Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC), Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 16; Contracting Officer’s Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials task order for a 5-month base period together with four 1-year options and one 7-month option.  RFQ at 16.  The RFQ’s performance work statement (PWS) described in detail the specific IT tasks to be provided under the task order in two major areas--operations and maintenance, and engineering and technology enhancement.  Id., PWS at 21, 23. The RFQ established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical approach, past performance, and cost/price (hereinafter price).[2]  Id.  The technical approach factor consisted of three subfactors, also in descending order of importance:  technical quotation; program management/management approach (hereinafter management approach); and oral presentation (scenarios).[3]  Id.  Further, the technical quotation subfactor consisted of two components:  technical quotation–written, and oral presentations–technical.  Id.