CACI, Inc- Federal (N0016422R3005)

B-421626.6,B-421626.9 Dec 13, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Sayres and Associates, LLC, of Washington, D.C., under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016422R3005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for professional support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and the agency's award decision. 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-421626.6; B-421626.9 Date: December 13, 2023 Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Esq., and John M. Satira, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for Sayres and Associates, LLC, the intervenor. Jeanne Ockerman, Esq., Rhonda Russ, Esq., Nichole Biagini, Esq., and Nicole Trask, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the technical and management factor and the cost realism factor is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement law and regulation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision to select a lower technically rated proposal at a lower cost/price is denied where the record shows that the agency’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Sayres and Associates, LLC, of Washington, D.C., under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016422R3005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for professional support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and the agency’s award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on January 21, 2022, to holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next-Generation multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The procurement was conducted pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 procedures. The RFP sought a contractor to support the agency’s Program Executive Office for Ships and, specifically, its offices known as PMS 325, Auxiliary and Special Mission Shipbuilding Program Office; and PMS 300, U.S. Navy and Foreign Military Sales Boats and Craft Program Office. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 9.[1] The RFP explained that these offices are involved in various acquisition programs and that their mission is to “deliver integrated ship, boat, and craft products and services to U.S. and international maritime forces around the world.” Id. The contractor would be responsible for various professional support services in the areas of: program management; engineering support; logistics management and integrated support; on-site support for detail design, construction, and post-delivery; and design site support. Id. The RFP noted that CACI is the incumbent contractor performing these requirements. Id. at 2. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order to be performed over a base year period and four option years. Id. at 2, 116. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis based on three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical and management, past performance, and total evaluated price (TEP). Id. at 117-119. While the RFP provided that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price, the RFP also provided that the importance of cost/price would “increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-cost factors on which selection is to be based, or when the evaluated price delta between Offerors is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the superiority of the non-cost factors.” Id. at 118-119. The technical and management factor included three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capabilities and approach, management approach, and personnel requirements. Id. at 118, 122-123. The RFP also provided that the first two subfactors, when combined, were significantly more important than the third subfactor. Id. at 118. Proposals would be assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id.