Peraton Inc. (28321322Q00000125)

B-420919.2,B-420919.3 Dec 08, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Peraton, Inc., the incumbent contractor, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. 28321322Q00000125, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for program modernization support services. Peraton argues that the SSA unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made the selection 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: Peraton, Inc. File: B-420919.2; B-420919.3 Date: December 8, 2022 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Jonathan Meyer, Esq., Tal Kedem, Esq., Alice Somers, Esq., Deborah Lee, Esq., and Kathryn Bostwick, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the content of the firm’s proposal, and with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably issued a single task order, as opposed to multiple task orders, is denied where the agency’s determination was consistent with the solicitation, and was adequately documented. 3. Protest that the source selection authority failed to exercise her independent judgment is denied where the record shows that, even though she relied on other agency officials, the selection authority performed the tradeoff determination. 4. Protest that the tradeoff determination was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the selection authority’s comparisons were meaningful and reasonably based on the evaluation judgments. DECISION Peraton, Inc., the incumbent contractor, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. 28321322Q00000125, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for program modernization support services. Peraton argues that the SSA unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2022, the SSA issued the RFTOP to procure program modernization support services under the agency’s multiple-award information technology (IT) support services indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFTOP, amend. 2 at 1; Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2‑3.[1] Specifically, the selected contractor was to provide a broad range of support services, including: applying industry standard product management frameworks to existing SSA processes; providing organized process training seminars to agency personnel; supporting lifecycle activities for software improvement; data warehousing support; and data evaluation AR, Tab 3, RFTOP, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The RFTOP contemplated the issuance of a hybrid task order contract to be performed over a 3-month base period, five-1-year option periods, and a 6-month extension period. RFTOP, amend. 2 at 7-9; AR, Tab 4, Summary of Award (SOA) at 2-3. The SSA would evaluate proposals in two phases. RFTOP, amend. 2 at 9-10. During the first phase, the agency would evaluate on a pass or fail basis offerors’ identified conflicts of interest, and any applicable proposed mitigation plans. Id. at 10. During the second phase, the agency would evaluate proposals under relevant experience and price factors, and then conduct a tradeoff determination. RFTOP, amend. 2 at 11. When describing their relevant experience, offerors were instructed to describe at least two, but no more than five, prior contracts where they performed similar requirements in terms of size, duration, and scope. Id. at 6. Further, when describing the scope of their prior performance, offerors were required to address seven different areas of performance including, for example, management of multi‑platform environments, and management of enterprise-level data warehouses. Id. When submitting their price proposals, offerors were instructed to complete pricing tables. RFTOP, amend. 2 at 8. The pricing tables required offerors to provide labor rates for various labor categories, such as business operations specialists and database engineers. Id. at 18.