Science Applications International Corporation

B-417976 Dec 10, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Armed Forces Services Corporation (AFSC), of Arlington, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-19-R-0045, to provide sexual harassment and assault response training. SAIC argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated the protester's and awardee's proposals. 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:  Science Applications International Corporation File:  B-417976 Date:  December 10, 2019 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Avani Uppalapati, Esq., and Brendan C. McNamara, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Challenge to the assignment of a significant weakness to the protester’s proposal is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that proposal used a labor category that did not align with the requirements of the performance work statement. 2.  Protest that the agency treated offerors unequally in the evaluation of labor categories is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s proposed approach required more explanation than the awardee’s. DECISION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Armed Forces Services Corporation (AFSC), of Arlington, Virginia, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-19-R-0045, to provide sexual harassment and assault response training.  SAIC argues that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated the protester’s and awardee’s proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on June 18, 2019, seeking proposals to provide “Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention” training courses “for the purpose of increasing the physical and psychological health, resilience, and performance of Soldiers, Families, and Department of the Army Civilians, Department of the Defense Personnel, Contractors . . .  United States (US) Government Agencies, and Allied Forces.”  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5j, Amended Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1.  The competition was limited to firms that were awarded an Army Human Resource Solutions Personnel Life Cycle Support indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement & Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The RFP anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a base period of 9 months and four 12-month options.  AR, Tab 5h, Amended Basis for Award, at 1. The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated based on two factors:  (1) technical, and (2) price.[1]  AR, Tab 5h, Amended Basis for Award, at 1.  The technical factor had three criteria:  (1) understanding of the requirement, (2) completeness and adequacy of the response, and (3) feasibility of approach.  Id. at 5-6; see also AR, Tab 27, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2-3.  For purposes of award, the technical factor was “more important” than price.  AR, Tab 5h, Amended Basis for Award, at 1. The Army received proposals from seven offerors[2], including SAIC and AFSC, by the closing date of July 8.  AR, Tab 27, SSDD, at 4.  As relevant here, the agency evaluated the protester’s and awardee’s proposals as follows:[3]   SAIC AFSC Technical Factor Acceptable Outstanding Evaluated Price[4] $165,073,468 $182,644,276 Id. at 5. The Army assigned AFSC’s proposal two significant strengths, one strength, and no weaknesses or deficiencies.  Id.  The Army assigned SAIC’s proposal two significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and no deficiencies.  Id.  As discussed below, the significant weakness concerned the protester’s approach to selecting an IDIQ labor category for one of the positions identified in the PWS.  Id. at 11.  The source selection authority (SSA) compared the offerors’ proposals and concluded that AFSC’s proposal provided the best value to the government under the RFP’s evaluation criteria.  See id.