Leidos, Inc. (86543D18R00001)

B-418242.5 Mar 03, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the pre-award actions taken by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 86543D18R00001 for HUD enterprise architecture transformation end user (HEAT EU) services. The protester contends that the agency's corrective action must include reopening discussions because the agency previously engaged in misleading discussions with Leidos. We dismiss the protest as premature at this juncture. 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:  Leidos, Inc. File:  B-418242.5 Date:  March 3, 2020 Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James M. Larkin, Esq., The Larkin Law Group LLP, for the protester. Richard J. Conway, Esq., Michael J. Slattery, Esq., and Carolyn Cody-Jones, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC, the intervenor. Audrey Roh, Esq., Jonathan E. English, Esq., and Julie K. Cannatti, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s corrective action in response to earlier protests is dismissed where the corrective action rendered the earlier protest academic and where the challenge is otherwise premature. DECISION Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the pre-award actions taken by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 86543D18R00001 for HUD enterprise architecture transformation end user (HEAT EU) services.  The protester contends that the agency’s corrective action must include reopening discussions because the agency previously engaged in misleading discussions with Leidos. We dismiss the protest as premature at this juncture. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on February 5, 2018, using Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 procedures, to holders of the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center, Chief Information Office, Solutions and Partners 3 governmentwide acquisition contracts.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.  The HEAT EU procurement is part of HUD’s initiative to transform its business and information technology (IT) landscape through modernization, with the objective of meeting its business requirements across mission areas through enterprise IT services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, RFP, at 8.[1]  The successful offeror will provide services and equipment to support a secure end-user environment, a tiered help desk, dashboards with real-time data feeds, service enabled devices or appliances, project management, and relocation and modernization of equipment.  Id. at 13-14.  The RFP contemplates award of a hybrid fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement, and time-and-materials task order with a period of performance consisting of a base year and six option years.  Id. at 3-7, 83. The agency received three proposals, including one from Leidos,[2] by the April 9 due date.  COS/MOL at 4.  More than a year later, on July 16, 2019, HUD issued RFP amendment 0009, which made several changes to the solicitation, including how equipment should be priced.  RFP at 2.  The next day, the agency sent Leidos a discussion letter and enclosed RFP amendment 0009.  AR, Tab 14, Leidos Discussions Letter.  The discussion letter set forth evaluation weaknesses and discussion items; none of the discussion items concerned how Leidos priced equipment.  Id.  On July 23, the agency held oral discussions with Leidos.  COS/MOL at 4.  On July 26, the agency issued a request for final proposal revisions (FPR), which were due on August 9.  AR, Tab 16, Leidos Request for Final Proposal Revision Letter. On October 1, HUD notified Leidos that it had not been selected for award.  AR, Tab 20, Leidos Unsuccessful Offeror Letter.  Leidos was provided with a written debriefing in which it was advised that “[w]hile Leidos proposed a technically superior proposal as evidenced in the higher rating in the technical approach factor, the technical superiority did not support the cost premium or differential of approximately 129% (total 7 year evaluated price).”  AR, Tab 22, Leidos Debriefing Letter, at 5. On November 1, Leidos filed a protest with our Office.[3]  On November 6, the agency requested that our Office dismiss the protest.  Specifically, the agency argued that Leidos was not an interested party because, while the evaluators originally found Leidos’ proposal to be technically acceptable, the agency conducted a “reevaluation or redetermination” and found that the Leidos proposal did not com...