CACI, Inc- Federal (N6426722R30140003)

B-422774,B-422774.2 Oct 18, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI, Inc.--Federal (CACI) of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Serco, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6426722R30140003, issued by the Department of the Navy for scientific, engineering, technical, and analytical support services. CACI challenges the agency's evaluation of Serco's proposal and the agency's best-value tradeoff 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: CACI, Inc.--Federal File: B-422774; B-422774.2 Date: October 18, 2024 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gordon N. Griffin, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., and Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., and Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Serco, Inc., the intervenor. Jeanne P. Ockerman, Esq., Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., and Patrick C. Sheehan, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 that awardee’s costs should have been evaluated as unrealistically low is denied where the record shows the agency’s cost evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging evaluation of the awardee’s non-key personnel is denied where the protester’s argument is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation coupled with a selective reading of the awardee’s proposal. 3. Protest contention that agency’s tradeoff considered offerors’ proposed costs, rather than most probable costs, is denied where the contention is contradicted by the record. DECISION CACI, Inc.--Federal (CACI) of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Serco, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6426722R30140003, issued by the Department of the Navy for scientific, engineering, technical, and analytical support services. CACI challenges the agency’s evaluation of Serco’s proposal and the agency’s best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2023, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation on an unrestricted basis to holders of the Navy’s Seaport Next Generation multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1-2.[1] The Naval Surface Warfare Center issued the solicitation seeking proposals for “Scientific, Engineering, Technical, and Analytical (SETA) support services for: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Naval Shipyards (NSY) and Naval Industrial Base efforts related to workforce/workload management, logistic services, business operations, and total force initiatives in support of NSY Corporate Project Execution, support, and workforce training.” Id. at 2, 7. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort order with a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 2. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost. Id. at 74-75. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and the two non-cost factors combined were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 75. The technical factor comprised three subfactors of equal importance: (a) technical approach; (b) management approach; and (c) personnel approach. Id. The solicitation established that the agency would assign offerors’ proposals an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable for the overall technical factor, and would not separately rate the three subfactors. Id. at 75-76. For past performance, the agency would assess the recency and relevancy of submitted references and assign an overall performance confidence assessment ranging from substantial confidence to no confidence. Id. at 76-77. Offerors’ proposed costs were to be evaluated for realism. Id. at 77. The agency received four timely proposals, including those submitted by CACI--the incumbent contractor--and Serco. AR, Tab 19, Source Selection Evaluation Board Report (SSEB Rpt.) at 3.