CACI, Inc.-Federal (70SBUR19R00000038)

B-418400.7,B-418400.8 Apr 29, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR19R00000038, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for information technology architecture and engineering services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that its best-value decision was flawed. 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-418400.7; B-418400.8 Date:  April 29, 2021 Craig S. King, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq. and Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., Arent Fox, LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., and Paul Rowley, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., the intervenor. John Cornell, Esq., and Eric Crane, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency unreasonably reevaluated proposals after taking corrective action is denied where the record shows the reevaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR19R00000038, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for information technology architecture and engineering services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that its best-value decision was flawed. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on July 18, 2019, to firms holding contracts under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) 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 3, Conformed RFP at 1.  The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a single hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials task order, with a 1-year base period of performance and four 1-year option periods.  Id.  The contemplated task order seeks architecture and engineering services (AES) to implement information technology (IT) solutions for USCIS’s enterprise systems.  Id.  Specifically, the agency sought contractor support across six specified task areas, including program management, network deployment and operations, and cloud engineering.  Id., attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. The solicitation advised that award would be made on best-value tradeoff basis, using a two-phased evaluation.  RFP at 62.  During the first phase, USCIS would consider the following factors, listed in descending order of importance, to make an initial best-value determination:  (1) technical approach; (2) management approach; (3) past performance; and (4) price.  Id.  In phase two of the competition, USCIS would invite those offerors with proposals representing the best value to the agency under the phase one evaluation criteria to participate in oral presentations.  Id.  Then, the agency would evaluate proposals against the established evaluation criteria--where oral presentation was the most important factor, followed by the phase one evaluation factors in the same order of importance--and would make a new best-value decision using a tradeoff process.  Id.  The solicitation provided that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The solicitation further advised that USCIS would utilize an adjectival confidence-rating scheme to evaluate an offeror’s technical approach, management approach, and oral presentation, with three possible ratings:  high confidence; some confidence; and low confidence.  Id. at 62-63.  For past performance, the agency would assign adjectival risk ratings of low risk, medium risk, and high risk.  Id. at 63.  Under the technical approach factor, the RFP required the agency to evaluate offerors on the extent to which their proposed approaches demonstrated an ability to perform the PWS requirements and showed a clear and thorough understanding of the AES requirements.  Id.