B-296206; B-296206.2, Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc., July 12, 2005

B-296206; B-296206.2, Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc., July 12, 2005 TITLE: B-296206; B-296206.2, Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc., July 12, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296206; B-296206.2 DATE: July 12, 2005 ************************************************************************** B-296206; B-296206.2, Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc., July 12, 2005 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. File: B-296206; B-296206.2 Date: July 12, 2005 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., and Peter A. Riesen, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., and Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., for Computer Sciences Corporation, an intervenor. John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., 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 against sole-source award of contract for maintenance and operation of foreign threat systems is denied where agency reasonably determined that protester's performance under its current contract was unacceptable, and that protester had not adequately addressed the unacceptable performance, casting protester's ability to satisfactorily perform new contract into doubt. DECISION Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc. (RAM) protests the award by the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO), Department of the Army, of a sole-source contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) for maintenance and operation of foreign threat systems. RAM asserts that TSMO improperly failed to consider RAM, the incumbent contractor, as a potential source. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND TSMO is responsible for providing realistic threats during the testing of weapon systems and during training and other exercises. Specifically, TSMO is tasked with the assembly of intelligence information and the design, development, procurement, operation and maintenance of operational hardware simulations of threat systems. In addition, TSMO is responsible for operating and maintaining a significant inventory of actual foreign ground and aviation systems. The foreign weapon systems in TSMO's inventory represent over a 40-year span of technology dating as far back as from the early 1950s. Statement of Work (SOW) sect. C.1.1, Contract No. W9124Q-04-C-0158. In 1997, RAM was awarded a contract for the operation and maintenance of foreign ground and aviation systems in support of TSMO. In 2003, TSMO conducted a competition for a follow-on contract. When, in July 2003, TSMO awarded the follow-on contract to Northrop Grumman Technical Services, RAM filed a protest with our Office, challenging the evaluation and asserting that the agency had failed to take into account an alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that would be created if Northrop Grumman performed the contract. We dismissed RAM's protest as academic after the agency proposed corrective action in the form of reopening the competition (B-292587, Aug. 15, 2003). After conducting negotiations with offerors, TSMO again selected Northrop Grumman for award, and RAM again protested to our Office. In our decision Research Analysis & Maint., Inc.; Westar Aerospace & Def. Group, Inc., B-292587.4 et al., Nov. 17, 2003, 2004 CPD para. 100, we sustained RAM's protest, primarily based on our finding that the agency had misled RAM 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. After amending the solicitation and obtaining revised proposals, TSMO again made award to Northrop Grumman. RAM again protested to our Office. In response, TSMO canceled the award and determined to resolicit, leading to our dismissal of the protest (B-292587.10, Mar. 18, 2004). On April 17, 2004, TSMO awarded RAM a bridge contract for continued performance through September 30, 2004. This contract was later extended through March 31, 2005 under the authority of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.