Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8, November 17, 2003

Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8, November 17, 2003 TITLE: Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8, November 17, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8 DATE: November 17, 2003 ********************************************************************** Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8, November 17, 2003 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: Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc. File: B-292587.4; B-292587.5; B-292587.6; B-292587.7; B‑292587.8 Date: November 17, 2003 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Lars E. Anderson, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., John T. Kirsch, Esq., and Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc.; Stephen S. Kaye, Esq., and William E. Olson, Esq., Bryan Cave, for the protester Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc. Karen L. Manos, Esq., and Gregory S. Seador, Esq., Howrey, and Linda T. Maramba, Esq., for Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Leslie A. Nepper, and Capt. Peter G. Hartman, Department of the Army, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where, based on a reasonable interpretation of agency*s stated expectations in the solicitation with respect to the desired staffing approach, protester, the incumbent contractor, was misled into proposing a staffing approach‑‑involving a significant reduction in core staffing from the historical staffing, reliance on extensive cross‑training, and use of surge staffing to perform a significant portion of the operational requirement‑‑that the agency viewed as essentially unacceptable. DECISION Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc. (RAM) and Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc. (COBRO) protest the actions of the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO), Department of the Army, in conducting the procurement and making award to Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. (NGTS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK39-03-R-0007, for maintenance and operation of foreign threat systems. RAM and COBRO challenge a number of aspects of the procurement, including the terms of the reopening of discussions after prior protests by RAM and COBRO, the evaluation of potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), and the evaluation of revised proposals leading to reaffirmation of the prior award to NGTS. We sustain RAM*s protest and deny COBRO*s protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee/award term contract, with a base period of 3 years, with six 2-year award terms, for an overall possible term of 15 years, to operate and maintain TSMO ground and aviation systems and their supporting equipment.[1] Offerors were to submit written past/present performance and cost volumes, and make an oral presentation (including slides). Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the RFP and was determined to be the most advantageous to the government considering price and non-price factors. The *best value* proposal was to be determined based on three evaluation factors: (1) technical merit, including (in descending order of importance) subfactors for competence and experience, program management, mission understanding, employee recruitment and retention, key personnel, and (as subsequently added) organizational conflict of interest (OCI); (2) past and present performance, rated as performance risk; and (3) cost (also denoted as price).