B-297133.3, ManTech Security Technologies Corporation, April 24, 2006

B-297133.3 Apr 24, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ManTech Security Technologies Corporation protests the award of a contract to Siemens Government Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMPD05-R-1002, issued by the United States Department of State (DOS), for engineering and technical support services. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297133.3, ManTech Security Technologies Corporation, April 24, 2006 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: ManTech Security Technologies Corporation File: B-297133.3 Date: April 24, 2006 Jonathan Aronie, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Andrew Mohr, Esq., and David S. Cohen, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for Siemens Government Services, Inc., an intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester was not prejudiced by the fact that another unsuccessful offeror was permitted to have more than 10 persons attend the oral presentation, which was assertedly in violation of the terms of the solicitation, where the awardee had only 10 persons attend the oral presentation. 2. Agency was not required to discuss relative weaknesses in the protester's highly rated proposal that materialized as a result of oral presentations based on a comparative evaluation of the proposals by the agency, finding that the awardee's proposal had a superior technical approach. 3. Protest against evaluation and source selection is denied where the record evidences that the procuring agency reasonably evaluated proposals consistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria. DECISION ManTech Security Technologies Corporation protests the award of a contract to Siemens Government Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. S'AQMPD05-R-1002, issued by the United States Department of State (DOS), for engineering and technical support services. We deny the protest. DOS installs and maintains security equipment at its facilities worldwide to protect its personnel and the United States' critical national security information from terrorism, mob violence, and technical threats. The RFP, issued May 6, 2005, solicited proposals to provide engineering and technical support for this function under a combined fixed-price and time-and-materials contract for a base year with 3 option years. Because the contractor was required to use service employees to perform the work, the RFP required compliance with the Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA) and included the appropriate wage determination. The RFP provided for award on a –best-value— basis with the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: Factor 1 - Technical/Management Solution/Approach Factor 2 - Performance Measurement and Management Program Factor 3 - Past Performance Factor 4 - Subcontracting and Socio-Economic Business Participation Factor 5 - Price. With respect to Factor 1, the RFP indicated that the proposals would be evaluated for quality and evidence of the extent to which the offeror's solution will achieve the program's desired outcomes, and would include assessments of the approach to performing and managing the effort; adherence to sound engineering, design and management practices; and relevance to the program objectives, environment, and constraints. Several examples were listed in the factor as to what was desired, such as a –comprehensive performance work statement and work breakdown structure that addresses the services to be delivered to meet the program and mission requirements set forth in the statement of objectives,— a –sound technical proposal that clearly demonstrates how implementation of the proposed solutions will deliver timely, reliable, responsive, compliant and cost effective services to meet the needs of the program stakeholders,— a –[p]rocess that reflect[s] current industry best practices,— and –[a]ctive and continuing participation and involvement of senior corporate executives in ensuring success of the program.— RFP sect. M.4. The RFP advised that the agency's evaluation ratings would focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the offeror's technical and management capability and the solution as demonstrated by the written proposal and oral presentation. RFP sect. M.5. In this connection, section L.18 of the RFP advised that oral presentations/discussions would be conducted with all offerors whose proposals had been determined to be in the competitive range, and that the sessions would comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(d).