Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (H98230-22-R-0002)

B-421252.4 Apr 28, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-22-R-0002, which was issued by the National Security Agency for network and exploitation analyst services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals and in the conduct of the best-value tradeoff. 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: Leidos Inc. File: B-421252.4 Date: April 28, 2023 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Anne B. Perry, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Shaunna Bailey, Esq., and Lillia J. Damalouji, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richer & Hampton, LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. Amanda J. Spencer, Esq., Michael J. Benjamin, Esq., and ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-22-R-0002, which was issued by the National Security Agency for network and exploitation analyst services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in the evaluation of proposals and in the conduct of the best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2022, the agency issued the RFP, which contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-award-fee level of effort and completion contract with a 1-year base ordering period, and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 30, 35, 40, 45, 98. The RFP provided that award would be made to the proposal that represented the best-value to the government on the basis of four evaluation factors: (1) management; (2) ability to staff; (3) small business participation; and (4) cost. Id. at 107-108; AR, Tab 19, Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC) at 4. Additionally, the management factor was comprised of three subfactors: program management; talent management; and mission essential services plan. AR, Tab 19, PEC at 4. The solicitation provided that management and ability to staff, when combined, were significantly more important than cost, and that the small business participation factor would be evaluated only on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 7. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s ability to staff by determining “to what extent are the [o]fferor’s hourly labor rates by labor category lower than” the government’s independent cost estimate (ICE), which was provided to offerors, and that each proposal would be assigned one of five adjectival ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 6, 9. Specifically, a rating of “outstanding” would be assigned when “[b]ased on the extent and number of proposed labor rates that are lower than the ICE rates, the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.”[1] Id. at 6. By contrast, a rating of “good” would be assigned when, “[b]ased on the extent and number of proposed labor rates that are lower than the ICE rates, the risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.”[2] Id. The solicitation also noted that unrealistically low labor rates “may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the labor rates necessary to recruit or retain qualified contractor personnel or to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.” Id. at 9. On March 30, 2022, the agency received several proposals, including proposals from CACI and Leidos. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4. Following an initial evaluation, the agency made award to CACI on October 12, and Leidos subsequently filed a protest of the agency’s award decision with our Office. Id. On November 8, the agency indicated that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating proposals, and we subsequently dismissed as academic Leidos’s protest, as well as the protest of another disappointed offeror. Leidos, Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B‑421252.1, B-421252.2, Nov.