CSRA LLC (19AQMM20R0032)

B-418903.9 Feb 03, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CSRA, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests certain actions taken by the Department of State in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM20R0032, issued to acquire cybersecurity support services for the agency's directorate of cyber and technology security. CSRA alleges that another competitor for the requirement, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of McLean, Virginia, should be excluded from the competition because, according to CSRA, Northrop Grumman engaged in certain actions that merit its exclusion, and also because Northrop Grumman has a an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that cannot be mitigated. We deny the protest, in part, and dismiss it, in part. 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:  CSRA LLC File:  B-418903.9 Date:  February 3, 2022 Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Umer M. Chaudhry, Esq., and Scott E. Whitman, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for the protester. Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., and Karla J. Letsche, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, an intervenor. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest arguing that, as part of corrective action, competitor should be precluded from further participation in an acquisition based on a misrepresentation in an earlier version of its proposal is denied, where agency investigated the entirety of the circumstances and determined that permitting the firm to continue participating in the acquisition was the appropriate course of action; agencies are afforded considerable discretion in determining what corrective action is appropriate to remedy a flaw in the agency’s procurement process. DECISION CSRA, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests certain actions taken by the Department of State in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM20R0032, issued to acquire cybersecurity support services for the agency’s directorate of cyber and technology security.  CSRA alleges that another competitor for the requirement, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of McLean, Virginia, should be excluded from the competition because, according to CSRA, Northrop Grumman engaged in certain actions that merit its exclusion, and also because Northrop Grumman has a an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that cannot be mitigated. We deny the protest, in part, and dismiss it, in part. BACKGROUND This is CSRA’s fourth protest filed in connection with this acquisition, and the latest protest raises two relatively narrow issues for our consideration.  Briefly, pursuant to the RFP, the agency seeks to issue a task order for the solicited services principally on a fixed-price labor-hours basis (with ancillary fixed-price and cost-reimbursement line items) on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and several non-price factors.[1]  Neither the basis for award of the task order, nor the agency’s evaluation findings to date are germane to the current protest.  Consequently, we need not detail either the RFP’s basis for proposal evaluation and award, or the results of the agency’s evaluation activities thus far.  The sole question in this protest is whether the agency has reasonably permitted Northrop Grumman’s continued participation in the acquisition. In June 2020, after soliciting and evaluating proposals, the agency issued a task order to Northrop Grumman.  In the wake of that selection decision, CSRA filed a protest, alleging that the agency had unreasonably failed to engage in adequate discussions, misevaluated proposals, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  In response to that protest, the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action by engaging in discussions, soliciting, obtaining and evaluating revised proposals, and making a new source selection decision.  After being advised of the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed CSRA’s protest as academic.  CSRA, LLC, B-418903, B‑418903.3, July 21, 2020 (unpublished decision).[2] Thereafter, in May 2021, after amending the RFP, engaging in discussions and soliciting, obtaining, and evaluating revised proposals, the agency again selected Northrop Grumman for issuance of the task order.  CSRA filed its second protest challenging the agency’s selection decision, arguing again that the agency failed to engage in adequate discussions, misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  In response to CSRA’s second protest, the agency again advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by engaging in further discussi...