CACI, Inc- Federal (W15P7T-23-R-0001)

B-421224,B-421224.2,B-421224.3 Jan 23, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's decision to exclude CACI from competing under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-23-R-0001 for award of the sixth generation of an Army information technology (IT) hardware contract; the contract is generally referred to as the Common Hardware Systems (CHS) contract, or CHS-6. The Army's decision was based on its determination that CACI's use of a former government employee's assistance in CACI's pursuit of the CHS-6 contract created, "at a minimum, an appearance of an unfair competitive advantage." Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Notification of Final Decision at 1. CACI protests that the decision is "inherently unreasonable," "not supported by evidence," and "in violation of applicable law." Protest at 2. 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-421224; B-421224.2; B-421224.3 Date: January 23, 2023 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Richard Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Amanda Westrich, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where the documented record supports the agency’s reasonable determination that the protester’s use of a former government employee’s assistance in the protester’s pursuit of a contract created an actual or apparent unfair competitive advantage, our Office will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. 2. Agency’s determinations regarding an actual or apparent unfair competitive advantage were not unduly delayed; did not deprive the protester of due process; and were not based on, or affected by, consideration of which companies would, or would not, subsequently submit proposals. DECISION CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s decision to exclude CACI from competing under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-23-R-0001 for award of the sixth generation of an Army information technology (IT) hardware contract; the contract is generally referred to as the Common Hardware Systems (CHS) contract, or CHS-6. The Army’s decision was based on its determination that CACI’s use of a former government employee’s assistance in CACI’s pursuit of the CHS-6 contract created, “at a minimum, an appearance of an unfair competitive advantage.” Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Notification of Final Decision at 1.[1] CACI protests that the decision is “inherently unreasonable,” “not supported by evidence,” and “in violation of applicable law.” Protest at 2. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The contract at issue is the sixth generation of CHS contracts under which the Department of Defense and other federal agencies are able to purchase tactical IT hardware such as servers, laptops, networking devices, ruggedized platforms, hand-held devices, operational transit cases and peripheral devises, along with warranties and support services.[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR) Tab 10A, PWS at 6. The predecessor CHS contract (referred to as CHS-5) was awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) in August 2018 and includes prices that are effective through August 2023, when the contract is scheduled to expire. GDMS, or a predecessor company, has held the CHS contracts since 1995. The former government employee who is relevant to this protest (referred to here as X) was the source selection advisory council (SSAC) chairperson for the CHS-5 procurement, and was one of the Army representatives involved in negotiating with GDMS prior to the award of the CHS-5 contract.[3] AR, Tab 3H, Responses from X to Contracting Officer’s Questions at 3. As the SSAC chairperson, X concurred on, and signed a document titled “Memorandum for [X], Source Selection Advisory Council Chair” that summarized several matters addressed during the CHS-5 negotiations, including: GDMS’s identification of “cost drivers in the requirements that could be managed or mitigated to minimize cost impact to the customers”; GDMS’s initially proposed rates for certain items; and various negotiated modifications to the solicitation requirements. AR, Tab 3Z, SSAC Brief at 3‑8. From January 6, 2016 to April 28, 2019, X also held the position of product lead (PdL) under the two predecessor contracts (CHS-4 and CHS-5).[4] AR, Tab 5E, Declaration of X at 2.