Computer World Services Corporation (W911SA22R3004)

B-421495.2 Dec 06, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computer World Services Corporation, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposal (RTOP) No. W911SA22R3004, issued by the Department of the Army for command, control, communications, computers, and information (C4IM) information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable for failing to reconcile the initial and post-corrective action evaluations. 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: Computer World Services Corporation File: B-421495.2 Date: December 6, 2023 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy Laughlin, Esq. Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and James G. Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Lieutentant Colonel Michael R. Tregle, Jr., and Major Brandon P. Mark, Department of the Army, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s post‑corrective action evaluation because it was not reconciled with an earlier evaluation is denied where the protester has not demonstrated any possibility of competitive prejudice. DECISION Computer World Services Corporation, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for task order proposal (RTOP) No. W911SA22R3004, issued by the Department of the Army for command, control, communications, computers, and information (C4IM) information technology (IT) support services. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable for failing to reconcile the initial and post-corrective action evaluations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RTOP pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5 on August 9, 2022, and amended it seven times. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTOP at 1, 3. The RTOP sought proposals from holders of the Army’s information technology enterprise solutions-3 services (ITES-3S) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the provision of C4IM IT services to support the United States Army Reserve Command G‑6 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. COS at 1; RTOP at 3‑4. The RTOP contemplated issuance of a single task order with fixed‑price and cost-reimbursement line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. RTOP at 3, 129. The RTOP provided for a best‑value tradeoff using three evaluation factors: mission capability; past performance; and price. Id. at 125. The agency would evaluate mission capability--which comprised management approach; staffing approach; and phase-in plan subfactors--on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, with past performance being slightly more important than price in the tradeoff analysis. Id. Relevant here, the RTOP’s past performance submission instructions directed offerors to submit information regarding no more than five relevant contracts or task orders performed by the offeror or its major subcontractors--defined as those subcontractors proposed to perform 20 percent or more of the effort based on the total proposed price--within the previous three years. AR, Tab 3e, RTOP Amendment 5 at 38‑39. The agency would determine whether each effort was recent, defined as completed or at least 20 percent complete within the previous three years. Id. at 31. The agency then would assess the relevancy of each recent effort, considering criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, and performance period. Id. at 31‑32. In determining relevancy, the RTOP advised that the agency would consider the effort, or portion thereof, that the offeror or major subcontractor was proposed to perform. Id. at 32.