Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (36C10B24R0015)

B-422823,B-422823.2 Nov 18, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., (BAH) of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte Consulting, LLP, of Washington, D.C., pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B24R0015 under the General Services Administration's (GSA) Alliant II multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for enterprise software development services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of Deloitte's proposal and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. 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: Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File: B-422823; B-422823.2 Date: November 18, 2024 Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Keith J. Feigenbaum, Esq., and Roee Talmor, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Deloite Consulting, LLP, the intervenor. Ronald J. Bakay, Esq., Rachel C. Fromm, Esq., and Desiree A. DiCorcia, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff is denied where the agency’s evaluation and tradeoff were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement law. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., (BAH) of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte Consulting, LLP, of Washington, D.C., pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B24R0015 under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Alliant II multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for enterprise software development services. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of Deloitte’s proposal and in the conduct of its best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 25, 2024, to all GSA Alliant II contract holders, and the RFP was subsequently amended four times. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order with a 1-year base period, and four 12-month option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 39. The RFP provided that the award would be based on a best-value tradeoff between three evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) price; and (3) veterans’ involvement. Id. at 125. The RFP provided that technical was significantly more important than price, and that price was significantly more important than veterans’ involvement, but the RFP also advised that the award would not necessarily be made to the lowest priced or highest technically rated proposal. Id. Concerning technical proposals, the RFP explained that the agency would evaluate proposals by considering the extent to which proposals addressed two principal technical discriminators: (1) an offeror’s understanding of the solicitation’s requirements; and (2) the feasibility of the technical approach. Id. Additionally, each offeror was required to “propose the labor categories, labor rates, and labor hours appropriate for its proposed solution to meet the requirements of this effort that form the basis for calculating the proposed price of this effort,” but the RFP also explained that the agency would not conduct a “cost realism analysis.” Id. at 126, 130. On April 24, the agency received four timely proposals, including proposals from BAH and Deloitte. COS at 3. The agency evaluated BAH and Deloitte as follows:   BAH Deloitte Technical Outstanding Acceptable Veterans’ Involvement Some Consideration Some Consideration Price $1,371,917,392.43 $726,441,067.61   AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 3. Relevant to this protest, the agency identified one strength, three significant strengths, and no weaknesses in BAH’s proposal. Id. at 6. By contrast, the agency identified two weaknesses and no strengths in Deloitte’s proposal. Id. at 3-4. While the source selection authority (SSA) acknowledged that the RFP provided that technical was significantly more important than price, and that BAH’s proposal had “considerable” technical benefits, the SSA ultimately concluded that BAH’s technical benefits did not merit an 89 percent price premium over Deloitte’s technically acceptable proposal. Id. at 16-17.