B-298838, B-298838.2, Smiths Detection, Inc., December 22, 2006

B-298838, B-298838.2, Smiths Detection, Inc., December 22, 2006 TITLE: B-298838, B-298838.2, Smiths Detection, Inc., December 22, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298838, B-298838.2 DATE: December 22, 2006 *************************************************************** B-298838, B-298838.2, Smiths Detection, Inc., December 22, 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: Smiths Detection, Inc. File: B-298838, B-298838.2 Date: December 22, 2006 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Richard C. Johnson, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq., Stephanie D. Capps, Esq., and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Thomas P. Barletta, Esq., Daniel C. Sauls, Esq., Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Michael C. Drew, Esq., and Ana Holmes Voss, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, an intervenor. Robert J. Sherry, Esq., Sheila A. Armstrong, Esq., Laura Patterson Hoffman, Esq., and Matthew G. Ball, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, for American Science & Engineering, Inc., an intervenor. Catherine Anderson, Esq., and Marion Cordova, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decision (SSD) were flawed is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation and SSD were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. 2. Source selection authority (SSA) performed a reasonable cost/technical tradeoff in determining that the awardees' proposals represented the best value, where the SSA's judgment, based upon the results of a reasonable, documented technical evaluation, demonstrates the SSA's understanding of the evaluated strengths and weaknesses of the respective proposals, and shows a reasonable weighing of the offerors' respective technical and cost advantages consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. 3. Discussions were meaningful where the discussions led the protester into the areas of its proposal that required improvement or further clarification. 4. Agency's cost evaluation was reasonable even though agency did not verify each and every item of an offeror's proposed costs in conducting its cost realism analysis since the cost evaluation was the result of the agency's exercise of informed judgment. DECISION Smiths Detection, Inc. protests the award of contracts to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), American Science & Engineering, Inc. (AS&E), and L3 Communications Security & Detection Systems, Inc. (L3) under request for proposals No. HSHQDC-05-R-00007, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), for the research and development, developmental test and evaluation, spiral development, pilot deployment, production, and operational deployment of the Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System (CAARS ) Program.[1] Smiths objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals, and maintains that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, conducted a flawed cost realism analysis, and failed to make a proper best value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on February 17, 2006, and as amended, provided for the award of up to three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for a period of 7 years. Simultaneously with, or immediately following, the award of the basic ID/IQ contract, the agency plans to issue Task Order No. 1, covering concept and technology development and developmental test and evaluation, to each ID/IQ contractor on a cost plus award fee basis. This effort will culminate with the delivery of one prototype CAARS to DNDO for test and evaluation. The RFP provided that the award would be made based on the best overall proposals that are determined to be most beneficial to the government with appropriate consideration given to the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, management, past performance and cost. RFP sect. M.1.