Systems Application & Technologies, Inc.

B-270672 Apr 08, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Navy solicitation for aircraft modification management support services, contending that the: (1) solicitation's personnel experience requirements unduly restricted competition; (2) Navy should have been required to supply the successful bidder with certain software; and (3) Navy deliberately constructed the procurement to limit competition. GAO held that the: (1) Navy reasonably determined that the solicitation's personnel experience requirements were needed to meet its minimum needs; (2) Navy was not required to furnish the software, since it was not necessary for the successful performance of the contract; and (3) protester did not present any evidence that the Navy deliberately limited competition. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. File: B-270672 Date: April 8, 1996 Protest that experience requirements for contractor's personnel are unduly restrictive of competition and can only be met by incumbent personnel is denied where agency establishes that specific experience is necessary to meet its minimum needs. Contracting agency is not required to acquire and furnish to successful offeror commercial software purchased by incumbent contractor and modified to produce contract reporting requirements where agency asserts that it did not pay for development of the software, and thus has no rights to it, and protester has not shown otherwise. Attorneys DECISION Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. (SA-TECH) protests requirements under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-94-R-0132, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, for modification management support services for its Naval Aviation Maintenance Office (NAMO). [1] SA-TECH principally challenges the RFP's personnel experience requirements as unduly restrictive of competition, and also argues that the agency should provide certain computer software to the successful offeror. [2] We deny the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period, with 4 option years, to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offeror. The required services consist of 11 tasks which can be summarized as: assembling modification kits; tracking funding obligations for kit assembly tasks; evaluating commercial versus Navy kit assembly costs; warehousing assembled kits and transporting them to appropriate installation sites; tracking the field inventory of kits; and tracking compliance with the technical directives which provide the field activities with the requirement and instructions for the installation of the kits. EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS Five key labor categories are listed in the RFP, the experience requirements for four of which--senior logistician, logistician, junior logistician, and data management analyst--SA-TECH maintains are restrictive of competition. Specifically, SA-TECH objects to the requirement that these key personnel have "Naval Air" experience with the modification kits; for example, for the senior logistician the RFP requires at least 6 years experience with "Naval Air Technical Directive Kit Management Procedures" and the "Naval Air Technical Directive Status Accounting System." SA-TECH maintains that these requirements can only be met by personnel who have worked, or are currently working, on the NAMO program, and that they are unnecessary for successful performance. According to SA-TECH, the concepts of aircraft/ship/weapon system modification are fairly simple, and the systems and processes are generally the same. SA-TECH states that it has personnel on other Navy contracts currently performing tasks functionally identical to this effort, who nevertheless would not have the required experience in "Naval Air" systems and procedures. SA-TECH states that it has been unable to locate personnel who can meet the qualifications, and that another firm has obtained exclusive contingency hire agreements with the majority of the incumbent personnel, so those persons are not available to SA-TECH. The determination of a contracting agency's minimum needs and the best method for accommodating them are matters primarily within the agency's discretion. Tucson Mobilephone, Inc., B-250389, Jan. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 79, aff'd, B-250389.2, June 21, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 472. This discretion extends to determining whether key personnel need to have experience with work of the specific nature to be performed under the solicitation. See, e.g., Marine Transport Lines, Inc., B-224480.5, July 27, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 91. Further, where a requirement relates to human safety or national defense, as here, an agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest possible reliability and effectiveness.