Protest Decision Details Posted: $311M DHS technical systems integration support services award

DIGEST

1. Protest that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation was unreasonable is sustained where the record shows that, to mitigate an organizational conflict of interest, the awardee eliminated a proposed teaming partner from its quotation, and the agency evaluation contains no evidence that the agency considered the impact on contract performance of the elimination of that firm.
2. Protest that agency conducted unfair discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency’s exchanges–conducted only with the awardee–constituted discussions, but the record does not establish a reasonable possibility that the protester was competitively prejudiced by the agency’s discussions with the awardee.
3. Protest that the agency conducted an unreasonable consistency analysis is denied where the analysis was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the contemporaneous technical evaluation.
4. Protest that the agency disparately evaluated quotations regarding the proposed use of innovation is denied where the record shows that the different evaluations reflected quotation differences.

DISCUSSION

Deloitte asserts that DHS’s exchanges with CGI regarding the awardee’s OCI constituted unfair discussions, where DHS did not conduct comparable exchanges with Deloitte.  Deloitte further argues that as a result of CGI’s exchanges with the agency, the awardee eliminated a proposed teaming partner from its quotation, and that DHS’s evaluation of CGI’s quotation unreasonably failed to consider the impact of the elimination of that teaming partner. The protester also contends that the agency conducted an unreasonable consistency evaluation and otherwise unreasonably evaluated technical quotations.  As explained below, we sustain the protest on the basis that the agency’s evaluation of CGI’s technical quotation was unreasonable, and we deny the remaining allegations. CGI’s Removal of a Teaming Partner from Its Quotation  Deloitte argues that the agency unfairly conducted discussions with only CGI when the agency permitted CGI to remove a teaming partner from its quotation.  Comments and Supp. Protest at 3.  As stated above, the protester contends that CGI’s quotation was unacceptable because it relied on the use of [DELETED] which created an impermissible OCI in the awardee’s approach, and that allowing CGI to remove [DELETED] from its quotation made CGI’s unacceptable quotation acceptable; thus, the exchanges constituted discussions.  Id.  Deloitte also argues that the agency failed to consider the impact of CGI’s removal of [DELETED] in its evaluation.  Deloitte notes that, after quotation submission but before the evaluation of quotations, CGI severed its relationship with [DELETED].  Id. at 4.  This severing of [DELETED], the protester contends, is not reflected in either the quotation or in the evaluation documents.  Id.  Deloitte argues that there is nothing in the evaluation documents, best-value tradeoff analysis report, or the award decision memorandum that reflects any consideration of the impact of CGI’s decision to sever its relationship with [DELETED] and thereby change its approach to performing the contract as outlined in CGI’s quotation.  Supp. Comments at 22, citing AR, Tab 11, CGI Technical Consensus Evaluation Report at 6-9, 17-19; AR, Tab 13, Best-Value Tradeoff Analysis Report; AR, Tab 14, Award Decision Memorandum.  Deloitte maintains that DHS’s evaluation of CGI’s technical quotation was thus unreasonable.    We first consider whether the agency reasonably evaluated CGI’s technical quotation and then assess the fairness of the agency’s exchanges with the awardee.   Reasonableness of Agency’s Evaluation of CGI’s Technical Quotation  Deloitte argues that DHS’s evaluation of CGI’s technical quotation was unreasonable because it was based on a quotation that was no longer an accurate statement of how the awardee would perform the solicitation requirement.  Supp. Comments at 21.  As discussed in detail below, the protester maintains that CGI’s quotation reflected that [DELETED] would make a unique contribution to performance, so removal of [DELETED] from CGI’s team was material.  The agency contends that, in the exchanges it had with CGI, “no material changes were made to CGI’s technical approach or price.”  …

DECISION

Deloitte Consulting, LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) call order to CGI Federal, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70RDAD23Q00000112, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for technical systems integration support services.  The protester argues that the agency conducted unfair discussions and that the agency’s evaluation of technical quotations was unreasonable.  We sustain the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story