NCI Information Systems, Inc.

B-417752,B-417752.2,B-417752.3 Oct 17, 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 AECOM Management Services, Inc. (AECOM), of Germantown, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) RS3-18-R-0078, issued by the Department of the Army for systems engineering and technical assistance services. NCI challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection process, including the agency's evaluation under the technical and cost/price factors. 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-417752; B-417752.2; B-417752.3 Date:  October 17, 2019 David Cohen, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Todd M. Garland, Esq., Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Dylan C. Bush, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical evaluation factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and the agency’s assessment of adjectival ratings was consistent with the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of protester’s and awardee’s proposals under the cost/price evaluation factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, including the agency’s interpretation of a solicitation provision allowing offerors to submit documentation in addition to what the solicitation explicitly required to support proposed indirect rates. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the record reflects that the contracting officer reasonably found the proposals of the awardee and the protester to be technically equal and selected the lower-priced proposal for award. DECISION NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to AECOM Management Services, Inc. (AECOM), of Germantown, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) RS3-18-R-0078, issued by the Department of the Army for systems engineering and technical assistance services.  NCI challenges various aspects of the agency’s source selection process, including the agency’s evaluation under the technical and cost/price factors.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2019, the agency issued the RFP to firms holding Phase I contracts under the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer’s Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.  The solicitation sought proposals to provide a wide variety of systems engineering and technical assistance services in support of the Project Manager Soldier Warrior.  AR, Tab 18, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single task order with cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursement contract line items for a 10‑month base period, three 1-year option periods, a 10-month option period, and a 2‑month transition-out period.  AR, Tab 16, RFP at 1. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) cost/price.  RFP at 13.[2]  For the purposes of performing the best-value tradeoff, the technical factor was significantly more important than past performance and past performance was more important than cost/price.  Id.  The technical factor consisted of four subfactors:  (1) transition plan, (2) recruitment, retention and staffing, (3) key personnel/resumes, and (4) corporate experience.  RFP at 3-6.  Proposals would be evaluated under each subfactor for the adequacy of the response and the feasibility of its approach, and the proposal would be assigned an adjectival rating under each subfactor.  Id. at 14.  The transition plan, key personnel, and corporate experience subfactors would be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.  Id.  The recruitment, retention and staffing subfactor would be rated as outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable.[3]  Id. at 14-15.  In describing the technical evaluation, the RFP provided that deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses would be assessed as appropriate.  Id. at 15. The past performance factor consisted of two subfactors:  (1) relevancy and (2) confidence assessment.  Id.