Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (HDTRA120R0001)

B-419860,B-419860.2 Aug 31, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, protests the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA) issuance of a task order to Noblis, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to task order request for proposals (TORP) No. HDTRA1-20-R-0001, to provide support for DTRA's cooperative threat reduction (CTR) program. BAH generally asserts that, as the incumbent contractor, its proposal was entitled to higher technical and past performance ratings than Noblis's proposal, and that the agency failed to properly evaluate Noblis's proposed costs for the transition period. 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. Corrected Copy Decision Matter of:  Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File:  B-419860; B-419860.2 Date:  August 31, 2021 Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., Lindy C. Bathurst, Esq., and Nicole E. Giles, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Krista A. Nunez, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Caleb E. McCallum, Esq., Venable LLP, for Noblis, Inc., the intervenor. Joseph V. Fratarcangeli, Esq., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the most important factor, technical, is denied where the agency’s evaluation, including consideration of the value associated with competing proposals, was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest asserting that, as the incumbent contractor, protester was entitled to a past performance rating that was superior to a non-incumbent offeror’s rating is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis for protest. 3.  Protest that agency was required to upwardly adjust the awardee’s proposed transition costs for evaluation purposes is denied where the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposed costs was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation requirements. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, protests the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) issuance of a task order to Noblis, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to task order request for proposals (TORP) No. HDTRA1-20-R-0001, to provide support for DTRA’s cooperative threat reduction (CTR) program.  BAH generally asserts that, as the incumbent contractor, its proposal was entitled to higher technical and past performance ratings than Noblis’s proposal, and that the agency failed to properly evaluate Noblis’s proposed costs for the transition period. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2020, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, the agency issued the TORP to contractors holding General Services Administration One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services multiple-award contracts.[1]  The TORP sought proposals to provide advisory and assistance services for DTRA’s CTR programs,[2] and contemplated a 1-year base performance period (including a transition period of up to 90 days) with four 1-year option periods.  Offerors were advised that the agency intended to award a single cost-plus-award-fee task order based on a best-value tradeoff that considered the following evaluation factors:  technical,[3] past performance,[4] and cost.[5]  TORP at 82, 87, 100‑102.  Finally, the solicitation provided that the non-cost factors combined were significantly more important than cost.  Id. at 101. With regard to evaluation under the technical factor, the solicitation provided that the  agency would assess “the extent to which [a proposal] demonstrates thorough understanding, capability, and a feasible, low risk, cost effective and timely approach to successfully perform all requirements of the task order.”  TORP at 102.  Under each of the technical subfactors, the solicitation identified various items the agency would consider in its technical evaluation.  For example, with regard to subfactor 1, technical capability/understanding, the solicitation provided for consideration of, among other things, the offeror’s demonstration of its experience/expertise, its approach to innovation and continuous process improvement, and a description of its proposed facility.[6]  Id.  With regard to subfactor 2, management plan, the solicitation provided for consideration of, among other things, the offeror’s organizational structure; transition plan;[7] risk management plan, to include “risks of international travel”; and subcontractor management approach.  Id.