Guidehouse Digital, LLC (70RCSJ24Q00000072)

B-423156.2 May 22, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to BDO Public Sector, LLC, (BDO) of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RCSJ24Q00000072, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency (CISA), for internal control assessment and remediation management support services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's quotations was unreasonable, and resulted in a flawed best-value 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Guidehouse Inc. File: B-423156.2 Date: May 22, 2025 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., and Vaibhavi Patria Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Tara L. Ward, Esq., Daniel P. Graham, Esq., and Peter M. Routh, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, for BDO Public Sector, LLC, the intervenor. Jeffrey D. Webb, Esq., and Neesha Kulkarni, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s past performance is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency performed a flawed best-value determination is denied where the agency’s tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of an order to BDO Public Sector, LLC, (BDO) of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RCSJ24Q00000072, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency (CISA), for internal control assessment and remediation management support services. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s quotations was unreasonable, and resulted in a flawed best-value decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 19, 2024, the agency issued the RFQ for the placement of an order under the General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule, Special Item Number 541219 (Budget and Financial Management Services), for internal control support services for the CISA Office of Chief Financial Officer Internal Control Subdivision. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3.a, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1-2. The RFQ, which the agency amended once, contemplated issuance of a hybrid fixed-price/time-and-materials task order with an anticipated task order term of one base year, and two, 1‑year options. Id. at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. The RFQ provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and three non-price factors (which are listed in descending order of importance): management and staffing approach; past performance; and price. AR, Tab 4.h, RFQ, amend. No. 1, Updated RFQ Provisions, at 9-10. When the non-price evaluation factors were combined, they were more important than the price factor. Id. at 10. The RFQ, however, further advised vendors that the agency would not issue an award to a vendor “who presents a considerably higher overall price to achieve only slightly better performance capabilities. Consequently, as non-price evaluations become more equal, price may be of greater significance in the trade-off consideration.” Id. Only the past performance factor is relevant to the issues presented in this protest. As to past performance, vendors were to provide up to three past performance references that demonstrated at least two years of experience performing the type of work described in the statement of work (SOW). Id. at 8. The past performance references needed to include work similar in nature to the requirement and be drawn from work ongoing or completed within the previous five years from the date of RFQ release. Id. For the past performance factor, the agency would evaluate the relevance of past performance and how well the vendor performed. Id. at 10. The agency would consider past performance relevant if it was like the solicitation’s requirement in both size (dollar value and number of staff supporting the requirement) and scope (work that is like the SOW). Id. The more relevant the past performance, the stronger predictor of future success and, thus, more influence on the past performance risk assessment. Id.