The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has upheld the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to award a $10.2 million support services task order to BDO Public Sector LLC, rejecting a protest filed by incumbent contractor Guidehouse Inc.
The ruling, issued on May 22, confirms that DHS conducted a reasonable evaluation of proposals and made a sound best-value decision in its selection process for internal control support services for the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Guidehouse challenged the award, alleging DHS improperly assessed BDO’s past performance and failed in its best-value analysis. However, the GAO found these arguments without merit, stating that DHS had appropriately judged the relevance and quality of BDO’s past performance references.
“The protester’s argument… is no more than disagreement with the agency’s judgment,” GAO concluded in its decision.
The GAO also rejected claims that DHS violated a solicitation provision by counting BDO’s reference covering two task orders as a single effort. According to the GAO, DHS reasonably concluded that the orders were part of a logical, continuous effort, thus aligning with solicitation requirements.
Originally issued in July, the solicitation sought fixed-price, time-and-materials proposals with a one-year base period and two one-year options. After an initial award to BDO and a subsequent protest by Guidehouse, DHS reevaluated all quotations and reaffirmed its original selection.
Despite Guidehouse receiving the highest possible past performance rating, GAO concluded that DHS had broad discretion to make price versus technical trade-offs and acted within its authority by choosing BDO’s $10.2 million proposal over Guidehouse’s $13.3 million offer.
“Ultimately, the contracting officer determined that the evaluated advantages did not justify a 26% price premium,” the GAO stated.
The decision affirms the integrity of the DHS procurement process and supports the agency’s authority in awarding contracts based on both technical merit and cost-effectiveness.
