Leidos, Inc. (W50NH9-20-R-CHMT)

B-418978,B-418978.2 Oct 29, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-20-R-CHMT, issued by the Department of the Army for intelligence support services. Leidos alleges that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal did not comply with the solicitation's requirements. 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:  Leidos, Inc. File:  B-418978; B-418978.2 Date:  October 29, 2020 Shelly L. Ewald, Esq., and Emily C. Brown, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for the protester. Captain Philip L. Aubart, Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected the protester’s proposal as noncompliant is denied where the record shows that the agency’s determination was made in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competitive range under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W50NH9-20-R-CHMT, issued by the Department of the Army for intelligence support services.  Leidos alleges that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal did not comply with the solicitation’s requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2020, the agency issued the RTOP against the Solutions for Intelligence Analysis 3 (SIA-3) multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RTOP, amend. 3, at 3.  The agency sought to procure counterintelligence and human intelligence support services.  AR, Tab 3a, RTOP, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  The RTOP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with cost-reimbursable and fixed-price components to be performed over a 1‑year base period, and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 2-3; RTOP, amend. 3 at 3.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  staffing plan, counterintelligence and human intelligence, and cost/price.  RTOP, amend. 3 at 49-51.  Importantly, the RTOP also advised, as part of the evaluation criteria, that “[a]fter receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the Offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance with the solicitation’s instructions and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.4 (‘Rejection of Offerors’).”  RTOP, amend. 3 at 49.  One of the conditions included an offeror failing to respond meaningfully to the proposal preparation instructions by omitting significant material data and information.  Id. at 50. The RTOP instructed offerors to submit a cost volume as part of their proposals.  RTOP, amend. 3 at 38.  Offerors were required to identify the components of their labor rates, and were specifically cautioned that “[t]he Prime is responsible for ensuring that the subcontractor provide a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component and each indirect rate applied to it along with profit or fee regardless of contract type.”[1]  Id. at 39.  Leidos and [DELETED] other offerors submitted proposals prior to the June 24 closing date.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3-4.  The agency rejected Leidos’s proposal as noncompliant because one its subcontractors did not provide the components of its labor rates.  Id.  After the agency informed Leidos that its proposal was rejected, the firm filed this protest.[2]  See AR, Tab 8, Rejection Letter from the Army to Leidos, July 23, 2020, at 1‑2.  DISCUSSION Leidos raises multiple allegations challenging the agency’s decision to reject its proposal as noncompliant.  First, Leidos alleges that the agency’s decision to reject its proposal was inadequately documented because the agency did not memorialize its rationale in a separate document, and appeared to reject the firm’s proposal after agency officials’ conducted internal oral conversations.  Comments and Supp.