Slalom Inc. (70SBUR24Q00000004)

B-422623,B-422623.2,B-422623.3 Aug 29, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Slalom, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to the contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and Capital Technology Group, LLC (CTG), of Bethesda, Maryland, by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70SBUR24Q00000004 for information technology (IT) services. Slalom protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection 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: Slalom Inc. File: B-422623; B-422623.2; B-422623.3 Date: August 29, 2024 Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Ryan P. McGovern, Esq., J. Andrew Jackson, Esq., Robyn B. Celestino, Esq., Shelbie M. Rose, Esq., and Matthew C. Sardo, Esq., Jones Day, for International Business Machines Corporation; and Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Capital Technology Group, LLC, the intervenors. Beth Sturgess, Esq., Richard Postma, Esq., Jessica Easton, Esq., and John Cornell, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the acceptability of the awardee's quotation under the corporate experience factor is denied where the plain language of the solicitation required one, but not both, of the members of the awardee's contractor team arrangement to submit a corporate experience example. 2. The agency's evaluation of the protester's quotation under the technical demonstration factor did not constitute application of unstated evaluation criteria. 3. The agency's evaluation under the past performance factor was reasonable and sufficiently documented. DECISION Slalom, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to the contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and Capital Technology Group, LLC (CTG), of Bethesda, Maryland, by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70SBUR24Q00000004 for information technology (IT) services.[1] Slalom protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 18, 2023, the agency issued the RFQ, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking development, security, and operations services to support software development for USCIS's Verification Information System, a national record system containing immigration status information used to determine immigrants' employment and benefit eligibility. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFQ at 62; AR, Tab 5a, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The solicitation, issued to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule contracts with special item number 54151S, IT Professional Services, anticipates the issuance of a hybrid, timeand-materials, fixed-price task order with a 12-month base period and four 12month option periods.[2] RFQ at 49. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following five factors: corporate experience, oral presentation, technical demonstration, past performance, and price. RFQ at 63. The RFQ advised that the non-price factors were equally important, and that, when combined, they were “significantly more important than price.” Id. The solicitation also cautioned that while USCIS was more concerned with “obtaining superior performance capability,” it would “not issue an award to a quoter who presents a considerably higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior performance capabilities.” Id. at 68. As amended, the solicitation established a two-phase process. In phase one, the agency evaluated quotations under the corporate experience and oral presentation factors. RFQ at 61. Thereafter, the agency informed vendors of their likelihood of success based on the phase one evaluation results and recommended either that they proceed or not proceed with a phase two submission. Id.