Guidehouse Digital, LLC (70SBUR24F00000012)

B-423833,B-423833.2 Jan 05, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse Digital, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), of Armonk, New York, by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR24F00000012 seeking information technology architecture and engineering services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal based on an erroneous evaluation of the protester's proposed staffing plan. 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: Guidehouse Digital, LLC File: B-423833; B-423833.2 Date: January 5, 2026 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., and W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Sylvia Yi, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for International Business Machines Corporation, the intervenor. Jessica Easton, Esq., Richard Postma, Esq., Dana-Marie Akpan, Esq., and Clarine Allen, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 protester's exclusion from the competition because its staffing plan was assigned a rating of no confidence is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with applicable procurement law and regulations. DECISION Guidehouse Digital, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), of Armonk, New York, by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70SBUR24F00000012 seeking information technology architecture and engineering services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal based on an erroneous evaluation of the protester's proposed staffing plan. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on August 22, 2024, and contemplated a single task order award with both time-and-materials and fixed-price contract line items. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Conformed RFP at 1, 148. The RFP provided that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff between five evaluation factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical capability/approach; (3) staffing; (4) small business participation; and (5) price. Id. at 161-163. Each non-price factor would receive one of four ratings: (1) high confidence; (2) some confidence; (3) low confidence; or (4) no confidence. Id. at 163. The solicitation provided that if an offeror received a no confidence rating for any factor the offeror would be ineligible for award. Id. The RFP contemplated a two-phased evaluation. RFP at 150. Specifically, in phase 1, the RFP required offerors to submit a proposal addressing corporate experience, which was the most important evaluation factor, as well as compliance topics not at issue in this protest. Id. at 151. The agency would then evaluate each offeror's phase 1 proposal and issue an advisory “down-select” notice indicating whether the offeror was likely to be successful in phase 2. Id. at 156. During phase 2 offerors would submit written proposals and conduct an oral presentation addressing the other evaluation factors. Id. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation included a staffing matrix to “show staffing requirements per task area based on the Government's knowledge of the requirements.” RFP at 158. The solicitation further explained that, during phase 2, offerors “may propose changes to these [staffing requirements]; however, any changes shall be highlighted, and the proposal must include an explanation for each proposed change, along with a description of any benefit the Government will receive as a result of each change.” Id. The RFP then clarified that the agency would evaluate any proposed alternative for “how appropriate it is for the requirement.” Id. Six firms submitted timely proposals in response to phase 1, of which four were invited to participate in phase 2. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. All four firms that were invited to participate submitted phase 2 proposals, including the protester and intervenor. Id. Relevant here, three offerors, including the protester submitted proposed alternative staffing plans, while the awardee did not propose an alternative staffing plan. AR, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 21.