Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd. (N6426723R3010)

B-422875.3,B-422875.4 Jan 02, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc. – Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6426723R3010, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Command for information technology (IT) services to manage, operate and sustain the Navy Maritime Maintenance Enterprise Solution (NMMES) digital platform. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the 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: Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd. File: B-422875.3; B-422875.4 Date: January 2, 2026 John R. Tolle, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Jon W. Burd, Esq., Morgan W. Huston, Esq., and Jonathan C. Clark, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for CACI, Inc. – Federal, the intervenor. Emily Rubino, Esq., Denny Phane, Esq., and Jasmine Knight, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's cost realism analysis of the protester's proposal is denied where the record shows the agency's cost evaluation was based on a comprehensive review of the protester's cost proposal and was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that awardee will engage in impermissible “bait and switch” of its personnel is denied where there is no evidence that the awardee made a material misrepresentation in its proposal with respect to the personnel it proposed to perform. DECISION Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., a small business of Lexington Park, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to CACI, Inc. – Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6426723R3010, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Command for information technology (IT) services to manage, operate and sustain the Navy Maritime Maintenance Enterprise Solution (NMMES) digital platform. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on June 21, 2023, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 procedures, to all the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation multiple-award contract holders. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 1-2, 88.[1] The RFP anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a period of performance consisting of a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1-2. The RFP stated that the IT requirements of the NMMES were a “follow-on” to a prior SeaPort-e task order, and were currently being supported under an interim or “bridge” contract by Imagine One. RFP at 2. In addition, the contracting officer states: The current task order referenced herein includes significant changes in scope and magnitude from the predecessor contract vehicle reflecting evolutions within the [IT] environment in general and NMMES requirements specifically. For example, the predecessor contract vehicle required a total of 3,100,000 labor hours, while the current task order requires 5,011,200 labor hours, an increase of 1,911,200 hours or approximately 62 percent. The current task order incorporates a top-to-bottom technical refresh in requirements, including the scope of labor requirements, necessary to adjust to rapidly growing changes in [IT] and the Navy's need to keep pace with those changes. COS at 1 n.1. The RFP stated that proposals would be assessed under each of the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and cost. RFP at 79, 89. The technical factor included three elements: technical approach, management approach, and personnel approach. Id. The RFP stated that the technical factor was the most important factor, and when combined with past performance, the non-price factors were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 89. Regarding cost, the RFP advised that the agency would perform a cost realism analysis of proposals to determine a total evaluated cost which would be used for the purpose of making the award decision. Id. at 91. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal demonstrated the best value to the government based on the evaluation factors. Id. at 88.