CACI, Inc.-Federal (HHM402-19-R-0012)

B-418110.3,B-418110.4,B-418110.5 May 22, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Arlington, Virginia protests the award of a contract to The Buffalo Group (TBG), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-19-R-0012, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for intelligence support services for the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), Directorate of Intelligence, MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa Bay, Florida. CACI contends that the evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. 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:  CACI, Inc.-Federal File:  B-418110.3; B-418110.4; B-418110.5 Date:  May 22, 2020 Craig S. King, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the protester. David A. Edelstein, Esq., Laurence Schor, Esq., and Allison Geewax, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC; and J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Scott A. Freling, Esq., and Brooke G. Stanley, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for The Buffalo Group, the intervenor. Major Michael C. Ahl, Max D. Houtz, Esq., Gregory A. Moritz, Esq., and Major Christopher M. Kovach, Defense Intelligency Agency, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that awardee’s technical proposal violated the solicitation’s proposal preparation instructions is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the proposal complied with page limitation and font size requirements. 2.  Protest alleging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals was disparate is denied where the protester’s “unequal treatment” assertions are not supported by the record. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s technical proposal is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that it suffered any competitive prejudice from the alleged error. 4.  Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the decision was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented as to why the awardee’s proposal represented the overall best value to the government. DECISION   CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Arlington, Virginia protests the award of a contract to The Buffalo Group (TBG), of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-19-R-0012, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for intelligence support services for the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), Directorate of Intelligence, MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa Bay, Florida.  CACI contends that the evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The USCENTCOM is one of the unified combatant commands within the Department of Defense, and its area of responsibility includes the Middle East and Central Asia.  See https://www.centcom.mil/ABOUT-US/ (last visited May 18, 2020).  The USCENTCOM Directorate of Intelligence (J2) provides the Command with tailored intelligence needed for joint planning, operations, and assessments; the J2 also serves as the Command’s authoritative source for intelligence expertise, skills, and comprehensive knowledge on a wide variety of topics concerning area-of-responsibility countries.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7.1, RFP amend. 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) §§ 1.1, 1.2.  The purpose of the procurement here is to provide consolidated intelligence analysis and support to the USCENTCOM J2.  Id., § 1.3. The RFP was issued on April 9, 2019, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. AR, Tab 3.1, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a time-and-materials type contract for a 9-month base period with four 1-year options.  PWS § 1.6; COS at 2.  In general terms, the contractor was to provide qualified personnel to successfully perform the PWS’s intelligence support requirements in all specified areas.  PWS § 1.3. The RFP established that contract award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, and involved five evaluation factors:  security, technical/management approach, past performance, price, and small business participation commitment (small business).  AR, Tab 4.1, RFP amend.