CACI, Inc- Federal (70T03020R3BCIO309)

B-420441.3 Nov 05, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T03020R3BCIO309, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for information technology management and support services. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of corporate experience and best-value tradeoff determination were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 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: CACI, Inc.-Federal File: B-420441.3 Date: November 5, 2022 Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Victor G. Vogel, Esq., and Miles McCann, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Caleb E. McCallum, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC, the intervenor. Christopher J. Curry, Esq., Kimberly M. Shackelford, Esq., and Christian Jordan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of corporate experience is denied where the agency’s evaluation was generally reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and any evaluation errors were not prejudicial. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff is denied where the agency’s decision was reasonable. DECISION CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T03020R3BCIO309, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for information technology management and support services. The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of corporate experience and best-value tradeoff determination were unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 16, 2020, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding contracts under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Alliant 2 multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, RFP amend. 11 at 07442, 07598.[1] The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order, with fixed-price and time-and-materials contract line items, with a 1-year base period of performance and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 07453. The solicitation sought contractor support for TSA’s information technology (IT) management, performance analysis, and collaborative technologies II (IMPACT II) requirement. Specifically, the contractor will, among other tasks, operate and maintain TSA’s IT capabilities, design and implement TSA‑directed system and infrastructure changes, and provide programmatic management. AR, Tab 12a, Statement of Objectives (SOO), amend. 11 at 07775. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four evaluation factors: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical; (3) price; and (4) approach. RFP at 07602. TSA utilized a two-phase evaluation process. Id. at 07602. In the first phase, TSA would consider proposals under the corporate experience and technical factors. The solicitation advised that for corporate experience, the agency would compare an offeror’s experience to criteria identified in the RFP, and that an offeror “must show in its submitted references that it has performed on contracts that meet all of the criteria[.]” Id. at 07599. Under the technical factor, TSA would “determine the feasibility and congruity” of the proposal “to meet or exceed the objectives and requirements of the Solicitation.” Id. Those offerors whose proposals were rated as acceptable or higher under these two factors would proceed to the next phase of the evaluation. Id. at 07602. In phase two, the remaining offerors would be invited to submit the balance of their proposals--that is, their price, approach, and edited technical volumes[2]--for consideration. Id. An offeror’s approach would be evaluated “to determine the feasibility and congruity of [approach] components to meet or exceed the Objectives of the Solicitation, including any risk mitigation efforts.” Id. at 07600. Price would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Id. at 07599. The solicitation advised that “[a]ll evaluation factors will be considered in the Trade-Off process.” Id. at 07602.