DirectViz Solutions, LLC (W91RUS-24-R-GCCC)

B-423366.2 Jun 11, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SOS International, LLC (SOSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. W91RUS-24-R-GCCC, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology support services for the Army's Global Cyber Center (GCC). The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were unreasonable. 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: SOS International, LLC File: B-423366.2 Date: June 11, 2025 Dawn E. Stern, Esq., David R. Lacker, Esq., and Andrew W. Current, Esq., DLA Piper LLP, for the protester. Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., and Karla J. Letsche, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for Peraton, Inc., the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Todd J. Liebman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's oral presentation is denied where the task order evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and sufficiently documented. 2. Protester's challenges to other aspects of the evaluation are dismissed where the protester would not be competitively prejudiced by any misevaluation of its own proposal and was not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the awardee's proposal because another offeror was next in line for award. DECISION SOS International, LLC (SOSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under task order proposal request (TOPR) No. W91RUS-24-R-GCCC, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology support services for the Army's Global Cyber Center (GCC). The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on October 25, 2024, seeking proposals to provide cybersecurity information technology support services for the Army's GCC. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5; Agency Report (AR), Tab 25, TOPR at 1; AR, Tab 22, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2.[1] The solicitation was issued, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding the Army's Computer Hardware Enterprise and Solutions Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-Services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. TOPR at 1, 4. The solicitation anticipated issuance of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and level‑of‑effort task order with a 1-month phase-in period, an 11‑month base period of performance, three 1-year option periods, and one additional 6-month option. Id. at 2. The solicitation advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value after a tradeoff considering the following five factors: (1) demonstrated prior experience; (2) key personnel resumes; (3) oral presentation; (4) betterment; and (5) cost/price. Id. at 18‑20. For the tradeoff, all non‑cost/price factors were of relatively equal importance, while the non‑cost/price factors, taken together, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 18. For the evaluation of the first three factors, the solicitation provided that the agency would assign confidence ratings (high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence), reflecting the agency's level of confidence that the offeror “understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.” Id. at 20. The solicitation also informed offerors that proposals rated as either low or some confidence for any of the first three factors would not be considered for award. Id. at 18. The solicitation provided for a two-phased evaluation. Id. at 1‑2. Under phase I, offerors were to submit proposals for the demonstrated prior experience factor and the key personnel resumes factor. Id. at 10‑11. The solicitation advised that only those offerors whose phase I proposals were assigned a rating of high confidence for both factors would be invited to submit phase II proposals. Id. at 11. Under phase II, offerors were to submit their betterment and cost/price proposals and provide oral presentations. Id. at 11‑18. For oral presentations, offerors were required to “provide an oral presentation based on the questions and problem statements received in person two hours before the oral presentation.” Id. at 16. The solicitation stated that oral presentations “may or may not be recorded by the Government.” Id.