Accenture Federal Services, LLC (HTC71124RD001)

B-423859,B-423859.2 Jan 16, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Accenture Federal Services, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71124RD001, which was issued by the Department of Defense, United States Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) for implementation of the Joint Transportation Management System (JTMS). The protester alleges that CACI should have been excluded from the competition because of unmitigable organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals. 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: Accenture Federal Services, LLC File: B-423859; B-423859.2 Date: January 16, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, and Paul Rowley, Esq., Accenture Federal Services, LLC, for the protester. Anne B. Perry, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Katie A. Calogero, Esq., and Daniel J. Alvarado, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton, LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Melissa M. Garcia, Esq., and Matney E. Rolfe, Esq., Department of the Air Force, and Patrick R. Gill, Esq., and Robert J. Depke, Esq., United States Transportation Command, 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 1. Protest challenging alleged organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the agency's investigation reasonably concluded either that no conflicts existed or that any conflicts were or could be adequately mitigated, and the agency gave meaningful consideration to all alleged conflicts. 2. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency's evaluation was generally reasonable, adequately documented, and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Accenture Federal Services, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71124RD001, which was issued by the Department of Defense, United States Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) for implementation of the Joint Transportation Management System (JTMS). The protester alleges that CACI should have been excluded from the competition because of unmitigable organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and that the agency erred in its evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2024, the agency issued the RFP for implementation of the JTMS, an effort that will involve both changes to business processes as well as the implementation and maintenance of a commercial enterprise resource planning software solution. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 10-year ordering period. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 2. Of note, the RFP provided that the delivery and task orders to be placed under the contract would be priced on a variety of bases including, but not limited to fixed-price, fixed-incentive, cost-reimbursement, cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, labor-hour, and time-and-materials. Id. The RFP contemplated a phased evaluation approach with an advisory down-select. Id. at 82. Specifically, in phase I, offerors would provide a proposal addressing, among other things, their technical capability and corporate experience and program management proposals. Id. at 84. The agency would evaluate phase I proposals and then advise offerors whether they were likely to be successful in phase II. Id. at 86. The RFP explained that phase II proposals should address each offeror's technical approach, a solution demonstration, small business participation, and cost/price. RFP at 84. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis among these factors. Id. at 100. The relative importance of the technical factors was, in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) technical capability; (3) corporate experience and program management; and (4) solution demonstration.[1] Id. Collectively, these factors were more important than cost/price. Id. Each of the first three non-price factors were to be assigned one of the following combined technical/risk ratings: outstanding; good; acceptable; marginal; or unacceptable. Id. at 101-103. By contrast, solution demonstrations were to be assigned one of the following confidence ratings: very high confidence; high confidence; moderate confidence; or low confidence. RFP at 103.