NCI Information Systems, Inc.

B-417685,B-417685.2 Sep 23, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (General Dynamics), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS-18-R-ADCN, issued by the Department of the Army under the General Services Administration's (GSA) Alliant 2 governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) for mission support services. The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and the agency's award 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:  NCI Information Systems, Inc. File:  B-417685; B-417685.2 Date:  September 23, 2019 Daniel P. Graham, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., Ryan D. Stalnaker, Esq., and Caroline E. Colpoys, Esq.,  Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Andrew Shipley, Esq., Philip E. Beshara, Esq., Chanda L. Brown, Esq., and Chelsea N. Anelli, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for General Dynamics Information Technology, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Todd J. Liebman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST The agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal to be ineligible for award, and thus the protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s best-value tradeoff and award decision. DECISION NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology (General Dynamics), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91RUS-18-R-ADCN, issued by the Department of the Army under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Alliant 2 governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) for mission support services.  The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and the agency’s award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 15, 2019, the agency issued the RFP to firms holding contracts under GSA’s Alliant 2 multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 1, 2.  The RFP required a contractor to provide capability management, engineering, database, and documentation support for the Network Enterprise Technology Command’s mission to develop, implement, and enforce enterprise systems management processes and activities.  RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 47.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for an 8-month base period, four 1-year options, and a 6-month option to extend services under FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.  AR, Tab 15, Task Order Decision Document (TODD), at 1.  The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical capability/risk, small business participation, and cost.  RFP at 19.  The technical capability/risk factor consisted of three subfactors: technical expertise, management approach, and staffing.  Id. at 20.  The technical capability/risk factor was considered significantly more important than the small business participation and cost factors, and the cost factor was more important than the small business factor.  Id.  The management approach subfactor was considered significantly more important than the technical expertise and staffing subfactors, and the staffing subfactor was considered more important than the technical expertise subfactor.  Id.  Cost proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.  Id. at 18. As relevant to this protest, under the small business participation factor, the RFP required offerors to meet small business participation requirements and to provide substantiating documentation demonstrating how these participation requirements would be met.  Id. at 12.  The RFP identified the minimum quantitative small business participation requirement as 15 percent of total contract dollars for the life of the contract.  Id. at 13.  The RFP advised that there were no minimum requirements for individual small business socioeconomic categories; however, if an offeror did not propose participation for a category, it was required to explain why.[1]  Id.  Both the instructions and evaluation sections of the RFP stated that substantiating documentation would be used to evaluate the scope of an offeror’s proposed commitment to use small businesses in the performance of this acquisition.  Id.