Peraton Inc. (RFTOP-C-115689-0)

B-422585,B-422585.2,B-422585.3 Aug 30, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. C-115689-0, issued by the Department of the Army for research facilitation laboratory support services. The protester contends that the agency erroneously found the awardee to be a responsible offeror and that the awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring a former agency employee. The protester also challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Peraton Inc. File: B-422585; B-422585.2; B-422585.3 Date: August 16, 2024 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., and Michael P. Ols, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for the protester. Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Victor G. Vogel, Esq., and Jedidiah K.R. Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Pamela J. Kennerly Ignatius, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s affirmative determination of responsibility of awardee is denied where the protester has not shown that the contracting officer unreasonably ignored information that would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. 2. Protest alleging that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage based on employment of a former government official is denied where the agency, after investigating the alleged conflict of interest, reasonably concluded that the former official did not have access to non-public, competitively useful information. 3. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria, and the protester was not competitively prejudiced by any evaluation error. 4. Protest of agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the protester has not shown that the underlying evaluation was unreasonable. DECISION Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. C-115689-0, issued by the Department of the Army for research facilitation laboratory support services. The protester contends that the agency erroneously found the awardee to be a responsible offeror and that the awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring a former agency employee. The protester also challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 21, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation to firms holding contracts under the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC), Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO‑SP3) governmentwide acquisition contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFTOP at 1.[1] The solicitation sought services to support the mission of the Research Facilitation Laboratory (RFL) of the Army Analytics Group (AAG), an organization within the Army’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). AR, Tab 13b, Revised Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. RFL provides program management for the Army’s person‑event data environment (PDE) data system, develops a PDE user community, and conducts relevant research studies, program evaluation, command surveillance, information technology (IT) development, and IT integration. Id. The RFTOP contemplated the issuance of a time-and-materials task order for a 12‑month base period with four 1-year option periods. COS/MOL at 2; AR, Tab 13b, PWS at 48. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering the following four factors: (1) screening criteria; (2) technical and management approach; (3) technical sample tasks; and (4) price. AR, Tab 4e, RFTOP attach. 5, Evaluation Criteria at 1‑2. The solicitation informed offerors that proposals would first be evaluated under the screening criteria factor, on a “go/no‑go” basis, using the following two subfactors: (1) Department of Defense (DOD) secret facility clearance; and (2) data science and analysis, machine learning, and IT engineering experience. Id. at 2.