Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (5000129611)

B-421524,B-421524.2,B-421524.3,B-421524.4,B-421524.5 Jun 20, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leidos Inc., of Reston, Virginia, and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (Booz Allen), of McLean, Virginia, protest the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 5000129611, issued by the Department of the Treasury, for information technology goods and services. We deny the protests. 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.; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. File: B-421524, B‑421524.2, B‑421524.3, B‑421524.4, B‑421524.5 Date: June 20, 2023 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Leidos Inc.; Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., Joshuah R. Turner, Esq., and Jedidiah Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., the protesters. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., William B. O’Reilly, Esq., and Zariah T. Altman, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. Justin M. Wakefield, Esq., Gregory J. Matherne, Esq., Meghan M. Baka, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a required price realism evaluation is denied where the solicitation did not require a price realism evaluation. 2. Protests challenging the agency’s technical evaluation of quotations are denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, or where the protester fails to demonstrate competitive prejudice. 3. Protests challenging the agency’s best‑value tradeoff are denied where the record demonstrates that the tradeoff was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Leidos Inc., of Reston, Virginia, and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (Booz Allen), of McLean, Virginia, protest the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 5000129611, issued by the Department of the Treasury, for information technology goods and services. We deny the protests. Background The Treasury intends to transform the way in which it delivers and supports information technology services for its bureau customers. Leidos Agency Report (AR), Tab E.4.1, Modification 1, RFQ at 20.[1] At present, the agency uses a mix of on‑premises data centers and multiple disparate cloud computing systems. Id. The Department of Treasury Cloud Program (TCloud) intends to provide the Treasury enterprise with a single source of support for its cloud computing needs. Id. The TCloud is a new requirement; there is no incumbent or predecessor contract. Id. at 4. On August 5, 2022, the agency issued the RFQ under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding General Services Administration multiple-award schedule contracts with special item number 518210C, cloud and cloud‑related information technology professional services. Id. at 1, 4, 117. The RFQ explained that the prospective contractor will be called upon to “provide access to a broad spectrum of cloud solutions to assist the Treasury enterprise with [its] shift from traditional on‑premises solutions to those housed and supported by commercial cloud solutions.” Id. at 4. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a BPA with a 1‑year base period, four 1‑year option periods, and two 1‑year “earnable award terms[,]” where both fixed‑price and labor‑hour orders would be issued under the BPA. Id. at 4, 7‑9. Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis using a two-phase evaluation process. Id. at 128‑132. The evaluation of quotations would consider the following evaluation factors, listed here in descending order of importance: (1) demonstrated corporate experience; (2) technical and management approach; (3) sample tasks; and (4) price. Id. at 128‑132. The demonstrated corporate experience factor was considered more important than the technical and management approach factor and the sample tasks factor combined. Id. at 128. The non‑price factors, when combined, were considered significantly more important than price. Id. Quotations would be evaluated under each non‑price factor using a confidence scale consisting of the following ratings: high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence. Id. at 130.