Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3, June 10, 2002

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3, June 10, 2002 TITLE: Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3, June 10, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3 DATE: June 10, 2002 ********************************************************************** Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3, June 10, 2002 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: Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. File: B-290080; B-290080.2; B-290080.3 Date: June 10, 2002 John J. Fausti, Esq., and Monica C. Parchment, Esq., John J. Fausti & Associates, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., and John E. McCarthy, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for TRW, Inc., an intervenor. Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee engaged in *bait and switch* with respect to key personnel is denied where agency chose not to incorporate awardee's key personnel provision into contract for administrative convenience, not because the awardee's proposal evidenced intent not to have the key personnel available to perform. 2. Protest that agency should not have assigned protester and awardee the same risk rating for systems management/program management factor is denied, where record shows that agency recognized the risks in each proposal, and concluded that both translated into moderate risk; protester's mere disagreement with this conclusion does not demonstrate that evaluation was unreasonable. 3. Agency engaged in meaningful discussions with protester where, during discussions, it pointed out significant weaknesses. DECISION Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. protests the award of a contract to TRW, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F25600-00-R-5017, issued by the Department of the Air Force for systems engineering, systems management, program management, systems sustainment, and contract transition for the Air Force Weather Weapon System (AFWS or SEMS contract). Northrop complains that the Air Force improperly evaluated proposals, and failed to hold meaningful discussions.[1] We deny the protest. The solicitation anticipated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period of 6 months, with 5 option years. The solicitation advised offerors that the contract would be awarded on the basis of the best value to the government, after an evaluation of proposals against the following criteria (with the non-price factors, collectively, significantly more important than price): mission capability (systems engineering, systems management/program management, systems sustainment, transition, small business utilization); proposal risk; past performance; and cost/price. Regarding the mission capability subfactors, systems engineering and systems management/program management were equal in weight to each other and more important than the other factors; systems sustainment was equal to transition; and small business was the least important. Also with respect to the mission capability subfactors, the solicitation set forth performance threshold requirements against which the proposals would be evaluated, as well as performance objective requirements. The solicitation also contained a performance requirement document (PRD) that listed requirements the contractor would be required to meet in each area. Three offerors, including TRW and Northrop, responded to the solicitation. A source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated the mission capability factor, assigning each subfactor a color rating (blue-exceptional, green-acceptable; yellow-marginal and red-unacceptable) and a proposal risk assessment (high, moderate or low). The color rating was based on how well the proposal met the evaluation thresholds and solicitation requirements, and the risk rating was based on the risks and weaknesses associated with each offeror's proposed approach. RFP S: M 6.6.1. A performance risk assessment group (PRAG) evaluated past performance by assigning a confidence assessment rating to each proposal, and a cost team evaluated proposed costs for realism and reasonableness. Following the initial evaluation, three rounds of written discussions (and face-to-face discussions if requested), and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions (FPR), TRW's and Northrop's proposals were rated green for all mission capability subfactors. Performance Analysis Report (PAR) at 2 and 66.