General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (70RTAC21R00000006)

B-420282,B-420282.2 Jan 19, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) award of a contract to Perspecta Engineering, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RTAC21R00000006, to "manage and operate the DHS Hybrid Computing Environment (HCE)" and to provide "professional services to automate, optimize, and modernize the HCE." PWS at 1. GDIT protests virtually every aspect of the agency's evaluation of proposals under the non-price factors, and asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. 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:  General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. File:  B-420282; B-420282.2 Date:  January 19, 2022 Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Scott E. Whitman, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the intervenor. Peter G. Hartman, Esq., and Roger A. Hipp, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 is denied where agency’s evaluation under solicitation’s non-price evaluation factors was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that agency’s discussions were not meaningful is denied where the agency identified each area of the protester’s initial proposal in which there was an evaluated significant weakness or deficiency. DECISION General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) award of a contract to Perspecta Engineering, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RTAC21R00000006,[1] to “manage and operate the DHS Hybrid Computing Environment (HCE)”[2] and to provide “professional services to automate, optimize, and modernize the HCE.”[3]  PWS at 1.  GDIT protests virtually every aspect of the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the non-price factors,[4] and asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 14, 2021, the agency issued the RFP, seeking proposals for award of a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under which task orders will subsequently be issued during a 5-year base ordering period, a 3-year option period, and a 2-year option period.  RFP at 14.  The solicitation provided that the source selection decision would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors:  (1) facility clearance/level of safeguarding;[5] (2) corporate technical experience/reference checks;[6] (3) staffing/management approach;[7] (4) technical approach;[8] (5) oral presentation;[9] and (6) price.[10]  Id. at 102.  The solicitation provided for a 3-phase evaluation process in which phase I proposals would be submitted and evaluated under the first factor, facility clearance and level of safeguarding.  Offerors with proposals that received ratings of pass would be invited to submit phase II proposals for evaluation under the second factor, corporate technical experience/reference checks.  Following the agency’s evaluation of the phase II proposals, the highest-rated offerors would be invited to submit phase III proposals for evaluation under the remaining factors.  Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation identified various objectives;[11] provided that the contractor “shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate one or more centralized, integrated dashboards”; stipulated that an offeror’s dashboard must “display[] all spending and purchasing under awarded Task Orders”;[12] and provided that the dashboard must be operational within the 120-day transition-in period.  PWS at 8‑11.  Finally, the solicitation provided that proposals “shall be clearly and concisely written . . .