IAP-C4ISR, LLC (832268636)

B-421726.2,B-421726.3,B-421726.4 Feb 12, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IAP-C4ISR, LLC, of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832268636, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for modernization support for the Department of the Army's Global Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Network Program requirement. The protester argues that the agency's evaluations of the protester and awardee's proposals were unreasonable. 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: IAP-C4ISR, LLC File: B-421726.2; B-421726.3; B-421726.4 Date: February 12, 2024 Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Michael D. McGill, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., and Leslie Edelstein, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. Maurice Griffithe, Esq., and Colleen M. Eagan, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluations of offerors’ technical proposals is denied where awardee’s technical approach complied with solicitation requirements, and agency’s decision not to assess strengths to protester’s technical proposal was reasonable. 2. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s cost and price is denied where agency reasonably evaluated proposals and found awardee’s costs to be realistic and proposed price to be reasonable. 3. Protest challenging conduct of discussions is denied where agency did not find protester’s price to be unreasonably high, and thus, was not obligated to raise matter during discussions. DECISION IAP-C4ISR, LLC, of Cape Canaveral, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832268636, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for modernization support for the Department of the Army’s Global Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Network Program requirement. The protester argues that the agency’s evaluations of the protester and awardee’s proposals were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2023, DISA issued a solicitation, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, under DISA’s ENCORE III indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 6.[1] The RFP sought proposals to provide support for the Department of the Army’s Global SIPR Network (GSN) Program requirement.[2] RFP at 1. The GSN program “provides improved SIPR multi-site, mobility access, wireless, and data-at-rest capabilities while consisting of an Enterprise Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) Network.” AR, Tab 1a, PWS at 1. With this requirement, the Army wanted to “leverag[e] CSfC capability packages in conjunction with Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI)/Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS) capabilities” to simplify operations, while “minimizing the use of the National Security Agency (NSA) Type 1 encryption equipment.” Id. The contractor’s responsibilities include, among others, developing and implementing an Army enterprise GSN architecture that will provide service for SIPRNet users at various locations throughout the world. Id. at 10‑21. The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price task order for one base year and four option years. RFP at 1. The agency contemplated making award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering two evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical/management approach and cost/price.[3] Id. at 5-12. The RFP advised that source selection would be made using a two-phase evaluation approach. In phase one, offerors were evaluated based on their technical and management approach under the GSN system design technical subfactor (subfactor 1). Id. at 4. Only the highest technically rated offerors would be invited to submit proposals for phase two of the competition. In phase two, the agency would evaluate offerors’ technical approaches under the other technical subfactors, as well as the cost/price proposals.[4] Id. at 1, 4. During phase two of the evaluation, DISA evaluated three proposals.