Peraton Inc. (FA8726-22-Q-0001)

B-421038.10,B-421038.6,B-421038.7,B-421038.8,B-421038.9 Apr 12, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with CACI NSS LLC, of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8726-22-Q-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for information technology (IT) services, end user devices, an enterprise service desk, and organizational change management. The protester contends that CACI obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring three former agency employees. The protester also challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of quotations under the non-price factors, as well as the best-value tradeoff 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-421038.6; B-421038.7; B-421038.8; B-421038.9; B-421038.10 Date: April 12, 2023 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., and Richard Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for CACI NSS LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Frank Yoon, Major James B. Leighton, Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., Rachel C. D’Orazio, Esq., and Sean Hannaway, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage based on employment of former government officials is denied where the agency, after conducting an investigation of the alleged conflict of interest, reasonably concluded that the former officials did not have access to non-public, competitively useful information. 2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations under the prior experience, technical and management, and small business utilization factors is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation criteria. 3. Protest of agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the protester has not shown that the underlying evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation criteria. DECISION Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with CACI NSS LLC, of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA8726-22-Q-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for information technology (IT) services, end user devices, an enterprise service desk, and organizational change management. The protester contends that CACI obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring three former agency employees. The protester also challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of quotations under the non-price factors, as well as the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force intends to transform how it acquires and provides IT services, secures applications and data, and invests in user experience to improve operational readiness. Agency Report (AR), Tab 21a, Unfair Competitive Advantage Report, exh. O, at 4. This effort is known as the enterprise information technology as a service (EITaaS) program. Id.; see also Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 2‑3. On March 29, 2022, the Air Force issued the RFQ (referred to as the EITaaS wave one RFQ) pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.[1] COS at 4. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single award BPA with a 5-year base period and four 1-year option periods, as well as the issuance of an initial order. AR, Tab 4a, RFQ Letter at 1. The RFQ required vendors to propose a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA)[2] with contractors holding a GSA schedule IT contract, “to offer a total solution in meeting the [agency’s] Wave 1 requirement, while maximizing small business participation.” AR, Tab 4p, RFQ Encl. 3 at 6. The RFQ provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis and established a two-phased evaluation approach with two “gates.” RFQ Encl. 3 at 17-19; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3. The first gate consisted of two factors (prior experience and small business participation), and was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. RFQ Encl. 3 at 19. Quotations that received acceptable ratings for both of the gate one factors would proceed to the gate two evaluation. RFQ Encl. 3 at 20. For gate two, the agency would evaluate offerors under the following equally-weighted factors: technical and management; price, and small business participation commitment document (SBPCD) utilization and prior experience. Id.