DIGEST<\/p>\n
Protest challenging the agency\u2019s evaluation of the awardee\u2019s proposal under the technical and management factor and the cost realism factor is denied where the record shows that the agency\u2019s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement law and regulation.\u00a0 2.\u00a0 Protest challenging the agency\u2019s best-value tradeoff decision to select a lower technically rated proposal at a lower cost\/price is denied where the record shows that the agency\u2019s decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
CACI challenges various aspects of the agency\u2019s evaluation of the awardee\u2019s proposal under the technical and management factor, the agency\u2019s evaluation of the awardee\u2019s proposal for cost realism, and the agency\u2019s award decision.\u00a0 In its various protest submissions, CACI has raised arguments that are in addition to, or variations of, those specifically discussed below.\u00a0 While we do not specifically address all of CACI\u2019s arguments, we have fully considered all of them and find no basis to sustain CACI\u2019s protest.3\u00a0 Technical and Management Factor, Technical Capabilities and Approach Subfactor\u00a0 First, CACI challenges the three strengths assessed in Sayres\u2019s proposal under the technical capabilities and approach subfactor, which was the most important subfactor under the technical and management factor.\u00a0 As a representative example, CACI argues that \u201cthe most glaring error\u201d and \u201ca blatant departure from the RFP\u2019s evaluation criteria\u201d was the agency\u2019s assessment of a strength \u201cbased primarily on the experience of [a named] individual proposed employee.\u201d\u00a0 Comments and Supp. Protest at 5.\u00a0 In this regard, CACI contends that the RFP \u201cexpressly excluded any consideration of individual employees\u2019 experience from\u201d the evaluation under this subfactor.\u00a0 Id. at 6.\u00a0 CACI further contends that this individual\u2019s \u201cexperience was irrelevant to the evaluation of\u201d the awardee\u2019s approach under this subfactor because this individual was discussed under the management approach subfactor in the awardee\u2019s proposal.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 In response, the agency argues that \u201cCACI\u2019s attempt to conflate one example of an individual\u2019s experience while at the same time discounting the knowledge, capability, and experience credited throughout the strength is nothing more than mere disagreement with agency evaluators.\u201d\u00a0 Supp. MOL at 8.\u00a0 The agency argues that the assessment of this strength was based on several considerations and consistent with the terms of the RFP.\u00a0 For the technical capabilities and approach subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency \u201cwill evaluate the degree to which the proposal demonstrates specific knowledge, capability, technical approach, and corporate experience (not individual employees) for both Prime and Subcontractors in performing all aspects of the SOW\/PWS [Statement of Work\/Performance Work Statement].\u201d\u00a0 RFP at 122.\u00a0 The RFP defined a strength as \u201can aspect of an Offeror\u2019s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or\u2026<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
CACI, Inc.-Federal, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Sayres and Associates, LLC, of Washington, D.C., under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016422R3005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for professional support services.\u00a0 The protester challenges various aspects of the agency\u2019s evaluation of the awardee\u2019s proposal and the agency\u2019s award decision.\u00a0 We deny the protest.<\/p>\n