Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (70CDCR20R00000006)

B-419210,B-419210.2 Dec 22, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CDCR20-R-000000006, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for systems and analysis program management support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its oral presentation, argues that the agency failed to document adequately oral presentations, and contends that the agency made an unreasonable 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File:  B-419210; B-419210.2 Date:  December 22, 2020 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Lidiya Kurin, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Deloitte Consulting LLP, the intervenor. Javier A. Farfan, Esq., and Cassandra A. Maximous, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation and selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is denied because the agency’s evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to Deloitte Consulting LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CDCR20-R-000000006, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for systems and analysis program management support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its oral presentation, argues that the agency failed to document adequately oral presentations, and contends that the agency made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation, utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to the unrestricted pool of General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) governmentwide indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract holders.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 17, 64.  The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of law enforcement systems and analysis (LESA) program management services.[1]  Id. at 17.  The successful contractor would be required “to conduct analysis to ensure better accountability, consistency, and efficiency of statistical reports, briefing papers” and other materials provided by ICE to DHS, Congress, and the White House.  AR, Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2.  The successful contractor also would be required to “provide deployment support for ICE Information Technology (IT) initiatives, operations research and strategic analytics, and business process analysis and transformation project support.”  Id.  The PWS explained that tasks under the order would “focus on . . . efforts designed to generate improvements in the immigration enforcement lifecycle.”  Id.  The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single task order with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement elements for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 17-18, 64. The solicitation provided that the agency would conduct a two-phased evaluation.  RFP at 58.  During Phase I, the agency would evaluate the most important factor--prior relevant experience.  Id. at 59, 65.  The solicitation required interested offerors to submit a request to schedule a phone interview, and to then submit a written summary of their prior relevant experience at least 48 hours prior to their scheduled phone interview, during which the offerors would be asked to go into more detail about their summary submittals.  Id. at 59-60.  The solicitation explained that the phone interviews would be considered oral presentations, that offerors were not permitted to record them, and that the agency “may record” them.  Id. at 60.  The solicitation established that the agency would evaluate offerors prior relevant experience based on a combination of their written summaries and phone interviews, and assign each offeror a “confidence interval rating” of high, some, or low confidence that the offeror would “perform successfully.”  Id.