NCI Information Systems, Inc. (319155)

B-418977 Nov 04, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology Services (GDIT), under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. 319155, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of NCI's proposal was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 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:  NCI Information Systems, Inc. File:  B-418977 Date:  November 4, 2020 Daniel P. Graham, Esq., Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Esq., and Ryan D. Stalnaker, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Matthew L. Haws, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., the intervenor. Gwendolyn T.D. Franks, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal based on unstated evaluation criteria is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   NCI Information Systems, Inc. (NCI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology Services (GDIT), under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. 319155, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for information technology (IT) support services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of NCI’s proposal was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 6, 2020, the agency issued the TOPR under the Army Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) Information Technology Enterprise Solutions - 3 Services (ITES-3S) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, TOPR at 1.  The TOPR contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order with cost-reimbursable contract line items, with a 6-month base period of performance, two 1-year option periods, and an optional 6‑month extension under FAR clause 52.217‑8, for Global Enterprise Fabric (GEF) IT support services.  TOPR at 1.  This requirement covers all of U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command’s (NETCOM) managed networks, including non-classified and classified networks.  AR, Tab 35, amend. 10, attach. I, Performance Work Statement (PWS) § C.1.0.  As described in the PWS, the services required to support the task order included capability management, project integration, process development, information assurance, cybersecurity, configuration management, hardware/software support, as well as various support functions.  Id. at § C.2. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two evaluation factors:  technical/management and price. TOPR at 5.  The technical/management factor had three subfactors:  technical approach; staffing approach; and management and quality control approach.  Id. at 6-7.  For the purpose of the best-value tradeoff, offerors were advised that the technical/management factor was more important than price, and that the technical/management subfactors were of equal importance.  Id. at 5.  The agency used an adjectival rating scheme with the following rating combinations for the technical/management factor:  outstanding; good; acceptable; marginal; and unacceptable.  Id. at 6-7.  The subfactors were not separately rated.  AR, Tab 3, Joint Decl. of Tech./Mgmt. Eval. Team at 3.  The TOPR advised that “[t]o receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than ‘Acceptable’ must be achieved for the Technical/Management Factor.”  TOPR at 5.  Though not immediately relevant to the protest, the agency would also conduct a price analysis to determine if proposed prices were fair and reasonable.  Id. at 7. The solicitation required offerors to provide a “written narrative that is the Offeror’s proposed solution to the requirement[s] contained in the [PWS]” that would “demonstrate an understanding of the tasks required. . . .”  Id.