Excalibur Consulting Services, LLC (70CTD022R00000002)

B-421190.2,B-421190.3,B-421190.4 May 05, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Excalibur Consulting Services LLC d/b/a Excalibur Solutions (Excalibur), a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Stella JV, LLC, a small business joint venture of Reston, Virginia, and Unissant, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under the "Hyper Automation" domain of request for proposal (RFP) No. 70CTD022R00000002. The Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued the RFP for creative delivery strategy systems designated "Scalable Ways to Implement Flexible Tasks" (SWIFT). The protester alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. 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: Excalibur Consulting Services, LLC File: B-421190.2; B-421190.3; B-421190.4 Date: May 5, 2023 John R. Prairie, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., and Lisa M. Rechden, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Roger V. Abbott, Esq., and Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Stella JV, LLC; and Jon. D. Levin, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, P.C., for Unissant, Inc., the intervenors. Javier A. Farfan, Esq., and Adam Hill, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s experience evaluation is denied where protester has not demonstrated that the evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging disparate evaluation is denied because the record shows that differences in the evaluation of proposals stemmed from the firms’ different offerings. DECISION Excalibur Consulting Services LLC d/b/a Excalibur Solutions (Excalibur), a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Stella JV, LLC, a small business joint venture[1] of Reston, Virginia, and Unissant, Inc., a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under the “Hyper Automation” domain of request for proposal (RFP) No. 70CTD022R00000002. The Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued the RFP for creative delivery strategy systems designated “Scalable Ways to Implement Flexible Tasks” (SWIFT). The protester alleges that the agency’s evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 25, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, the agency issued the SWIFT combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1.[2] The solicitation separated the overall requirement into the following four domains to be evaluated and awarded separately: hyper automation; platform as a service; visualization; and collaborative services.[3] Id. at 3. This protest relates only to the evaluation and awards under the hyper automation domain, which was set aside for small businesses. Protest at 4. The PWS defined hyper automation as “a business-driven, controlled approach that ICE uses to identify, vet and automate[] IT [information technology] processes [that] involves the orchestrated use of multiple technologies, tools, or platforms, including artificial intelligence (AI).” AR, Tab 5, PWS at 7. The solicitation anticipated the award of up to two IDIQ contracts per domain, and provided that the total value of all task orders awarded under all IDIQ contracts during the 5-year ordering period shall not exceed $340 million. RFP at 3, 5. The solicitation set forth a two-phase, best-value tradeoff source selection process, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) prior experience; (2) oral presentation; (3) small business participation plan (small business); and (4) price. Id. at 116. When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. In phase 1, the agency would evaluate only prior experience. Id. at 104. After the phase 1 evaluation, the agency would issue an advisory notification “of the Government’s advisory recommendation to proceed or not to proceed to” phase 2 of the proposal submission process.[4] Id. at 104. In phase 2, the remaining offerors would be evaluated under the oral presentation, small business, and price factors. The RFP provided that non-price evaluation factors would be assigned one of three possible confidence ratings: high confidence; some confidence; and low confidence. AR, Tab 40, SSDD at 7-8.