CACI, Inc- Federal (HHM402-21-R-0077)

B-420729.2 Mar 01, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.--Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-21-R-0077, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process. 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: CACI, Inc.--Federal File: B-420729.2 Date: March 1, 2023 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gordon Griffin, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., and Richard Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Scott M. McCaleb, Esq, John R. Prairie, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, the intervenor. James E. Durkee, Esq., Max D. Houtz, Esq., William S. Whitman, Esq., and Lieutenant Colonel Jason R. Hull, Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s reevaluation because it was not reconciled with an earlier evaluation is denied because there was no requirement to do so. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to assign higher adjectival ratings to and assess additional strengths in the protester’s proposal is denied because the record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The protester’s disagreement with the agency’s assessment of the merits of the firm’s proposal does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. 3. Protest alleging disparate evaluation is denied because the record shows that differences in the evaluation of proposals stemmed from the firms’ different offerings. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision is denied because the record shows the selection was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s establishment of a highest technically rated, reasonably priced award methodology. DECISION CACI, Inc.--Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-21-R-0077, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for information technology (IT) services. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2021, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued a task order RFP to holders of its Solutions for the Information Technology Enterprise III indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 63; Tab 17, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 1.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for enterprise application IT lifecycle services focused “on maintaining and enhancing an application’s current capability while identifying future capability needs and eliminating capability overlaps.” Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single task order with a mix of time-and-materials and cost-reimbursable line items for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 2-7, 63. The solicitation provided that the agency would make its source selection decision using a “Highest Technically Evaluated Proposal with a Fair and Reasonable Price,” or HiTERP, methodology. Id. at 63, 66. The solicitation explained that the HiTERP selection would be a multi-step process where the agency would first evaluate offerors’ technical proposals to determine which proposal was the highest technically rated. Id. at 66. Only then would the agency request submission of a price proposal from the offeror with the highest technically rated proposal. For the evaluation of technical proposals, the solicitation established three evaluation factors, which it listed in descending order of importance: (1) relevant experience; (2) technical approach; and (3) transition. Id. at 67-68, 73. All three of the non-price factors included a number of subfactors, which were “equally weighted within each non-price factor.” Id. at 73. After completing the technical evaluation and receiving a price proposal from the highest technically rated offeror, the agency would then evaluate that offeror’s price proposal for fair and reasonable pricing. RFP at 67. If the offeror’s price proposal was deemed to be fair and reasonable, the agency would issue the task order to that firm without receiving price proposals from the other offerors. Id.