Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (FA8730-21-F-0113)

B-420098,B-420098.2,B-420098.3 Dec 01, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to fair opportunity procurement request (FOPR) No. FA8730-21-F-0113, under the General Services Administration's (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for engineering services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation and in the conduct of its best-suited offeror tradeoff 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:  Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File:  B-420098; B-420098.2; B-420098.3 Date:  December 1, 2021 Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Anna L. Dykema, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., and Caleb E. McCallum, Esq., Venable, LLP, for  Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Rebecca Tatum, Esq., Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., and Sean B. Brady, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency evaluation of proposals and tradeoff decision is denied where the evaluation and tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to fair opportunity procurement  request (FOPR) No. FA8730-21-F-0113, under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for engineering services.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation and in the conduct of its best-suited offeror tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The FOPR seeks to procure engineering and integration support for the Air Force’s “Medusa” system, which provides the capability to detect, identify, track, and defeat small unpiloted aerial systems, as well as rockets and mortars.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The effort includes both system integration and software development necessary to add various new capabilities to Medusa.  Id. On June 17, the agency issued the FOPR using the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 via GSA’s e-Buy platform.  COS at 3.  The FOPR included detailed instructions for proposal preparation (IFPP) that set out three evaluation factors:  technical approach, management approach, and cost/price.   AR, Tab 7, IFPP at 7.  The technical approach factor was divided into five subfactors:  (1) software project engineering, (2) hardware project engineering, (3) site project engineering, (4) technical planning services, and (5) sample problem.  Id.  The IFPP explained that, in selecting the best-suited offeror, the technical approach was more important than management approach or cost/price.  Id. at 10.  However, the IFPP also noted management approach and cost/price would “contribute substantially” to the selection decision.  Id. Relevant to this protest, the IFPP provided a sample threat scenario, and instructed offerors to explain how they would address it using their unique technical approach.  Id. at 8-9.  Additionally, the IFPP included the following instructions for responding to the sample problem:  The Company will be evaluated based on their demonstration of creative thinking to reach a reasonable response/solution, the soundness and resourcefulness of their methodology, and their ability to tell a complete story.  The sample problem response/solution must demonstrate direct correspondence with the offeror’s proposed approach in accordance with the Technical Volume in the above problem, creativity is considered as a demonstration of the Offeror’s ability to integrate new ideas into existing processes, or to use existing technologies or methodologies in new or unique ways. The demonstration of creativity should offer insight into the Offeror’s thought processes and decision making approach, i.e., what sets them apart. AR, Tab 7, IFPP at 8. Additionally, the IFPP provided detailed instructions for submission of cost/price proposals.  Id.