Halfaker and Associates, LLC (T4NG-0613)

B-420279.2,B-420279.4,B-420279.5 Jan 19, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Halfaker and Associates, LLC, located in Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Liberty IT Solutions, LLC, located in Herndon, Virginia, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. T4NG-0613, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health services development, security and operations (DevSecOps) support. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated Halfaker and Liberty's technical approaches, failed to disqualify the awardee despite its organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination. 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:  Halfaker and Associates, LLC File:  B-420279.2; B-420279.4; B-420279.5 Date:  January 19, 2022 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Nicole E. Giles, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Liberty IT Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., E. Pamela McArthur, Esq., and Mellany Alio, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the contents of the offerors’ proposals and the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s failure to disqualify awardee due to alleged organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the protester does not identify hard facts supporting the alleged conflicts of interest. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where agency adequately documented its reason for issuing a task order to the higher-priced, technically superior offeror. DECISION Halfaker and Associates, LLC, located in Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Liberty IT Solutions, LLC, located in Herndon, Virginia, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) No. T4NG-0613, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health services development, security and operations (DevSecOps) support.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated Halfaker and Liberty’s technical approaches, failed to disqualify the awardee despite its organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and conducted a flawed best-value tradeoff determination.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 31, 2021, the agency issued the RTEP as a task order solicitation under the agency’s Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology-Next Generation multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.  The solicitation sought health services DevSecOps support for the VA’s Office of Information and Technology (OIT), Development, Security and Operations, Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO), Health Services Portfolio Operations.  The support to be provided includes shippable products, operations support, and security compliance for the Health Services Portfolio.[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  The solicitation contemplated a 12-month, fixed-price task order with a cost-reimbursable line item for travel and four 12-month option periods. The RTEP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RTEP at 4.[2]  The technical factor was significantly more important than the past performance factor, which was significantly more important than price.  Id.  To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than acceptable was required for the technical factor.  Id. For the evaluation of the technical factor, the solicitation required offerors to propose a detailed technical approach that provides, among other elements, an approach that addresses the criteria for current VistA and Non-VistA legacy products referenced in the base year potential product list.[3]  Id. at 3. The solicitation contemplated that the evaluation of the technical factor would consider two criteria:  understanding of the problem and feasibility of approach.  Id.