ICF Incorporated, LLC (RFQ1422996)

B-419049.3,B-419049.4 Mar 09, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. (ICF) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFQ1422996, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army), for research, development, and deployment of capabilities to support Department of Defense imperatives for cyber operations and security. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical and cost proposals and the source selection decision. 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:  ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. File:  B-419049.3; B-419049.4 Date:  March 9, 2021 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Krista A. Nunez, Esq., Venable LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Alexa B. Bryan, Esq., and Thomas Clark, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging the awardee’s proposal did not meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements for key personnel security clearances is denied where the solicitation did not require active clearances until after task order award. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record confirms that the evaluation was reasonable, equal, and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism analysis is denied where the agency’s evaluation of cost proposals was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 4.  Protest challenging the award decision is denied where the agency’s source selection decision was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. DECISION   ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. (ICF) of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFQ1422996, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army), for research, development, and deployment of capabilities to support Department of Defense imperatives for cyber operations and security.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’[1] technical and cost proposals and the source selection decision. We deny the protest.  The Army issued the RFP on April 8, 2020, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) Alliant II indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Final Version of RFP (RFP) at 1, 5.  The RFP contemplated the award of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order with a base period of 1‑year and four 1‑year options.  RFP at 2, 20.  The purpose of the RFP was to acquire services to address “today’s cyber threats by designing and deploying game‑changing cyber defense capabilities that allow organizations to defend better, react faster, coordinate rapidly, prioritize efforts, and respond smarter to security events, increased risks, and operational directives.”  Id. at 1.  The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  (1) technical, (2) small business participation, and (3) cost.  Id. at 20.  The small business participation factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 20, 22.  For purposes of award, the technical factor was “more important” than cost.  Id. at 20.   The technical factor was comprised of three equally‑weighted elements.  Id. at 5.  Under element 1, technical understanding, offerors were to address the requirements detailed in the performance work statement (PWS), and address four listed scenarios.  Id. at 5‑9.  Under element 2, implementation plan, offerors were to submit a master plan demonstrating the general context for the PWS requirements.  Id.  Under element 3, manpower level of effort, offerors were required to propose the exact labor categories and associated hours specified in the solicitation, without deviation.  Id. at 10.  Element 3 of the technical factor also covered key personnel qualifications.  Id.    Under the technical factor, the RFP explained that proposals could be assessed strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies.  Id.