SOS International, LLC (H98230-21-R-0048)

B-422323 Apr 24, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SOS International, LLC (SOSi), of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.--Federal (CACI), of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-21-R-0048, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for language analyst services. The protester challenges the agency's conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and best-value tradeoff source selection. 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: SOS International, LLC File: B-422323 Date: April 24, 2024 Dawn E. Stern, Esq., Christie M. Alvarez, Esq., and Andrew W. Current, Esq., DLA Piper LLP, for the protester. Anne B. Perry, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Katie A. Calogero, Esq., and Daniel J. Alvarado, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for CACI,Inc.--Federal, the intervenor. ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq., Ronald M. LaRocca, Esq., and Sharon E. Chamberlain, Esq., National Security Agency, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where the agency was not required to advise protester of weaknesses that did not rise to the level of significant weaknesses or deficiencies. 2. Protester’s contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 3. Protest that the agency disparately evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows the differences in evaluations resulted from differences in the proposals. DECISION SOS International, LLC (SOSi), of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.--Federal (CACI), of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H98230-21-R-0048, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for language analyst services. The protester challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and best-value tradeoff source selection. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 27, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the solicitation seeking proposals for the provision of 640,000 labor hours of language analyst services to support the NSA’s Directorate of Operations and Cybersecurity Directorate. Agency Report (AR), Tab 81, RFP at 1, 3; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.[1] The solicited services are currently being performed by CACI. COS at 1. The solicitation contemplated award of a single cost‑plus-award-fee level-of-effort contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 12, 115. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, with the combined non-cost factors being significantly more important than cost. RFP at 125. With respect to cost, the solicitation provided the agency would conduct a cost realism analysis, develop a most probable cost, and assess overall cost for reasonableness. Id. at 136. The solicitation established three non-cost evaluation factors, which listed in decreasing order of importance were: (1) management; (2) ability to staff; and (3) small business participation. Id. at 129, 132. The management factor comprised three subfactors: (i) program management; (ii) talent management; and (iii) mission essential services plan. Id. Each of the three management subfactors included a number of specific criteria that would be evaluated. Id. at 133-134. The solicitation explained that for all but one of the non-cost factors and subfactors, the agency would assign an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. RFP at 129-132. The mission essential services plan subfactor would be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis only. Id. at 131. The solicitation further explained that for the individual criteria under the management subfactors, “each individual criterion” would be appraised as being a significant strength, strength, meets standard, weakness, significant weakness, or deficiency. Id. For example, under the talent management subfactor of the management factor, the solicitation included four specific criteria that would be evaluated, which were designated as 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4. Id. at 134. Under the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, the agency would denote each criterion 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 as a strength, weakness, etc., while assigning the overall talent management subfactor an adjectival rating of good, acceptable, etc. for each proposal.[2] The solicitation defined each adjectival rating, as well as the individual criterion designation.