B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4, Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., September 6, 2007

B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4, Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., September 6, 2007 TITLE: B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4, Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., September 6, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4 DATE: September 6, 2007 ************************************************************************************************************************************ B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4, Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, INc., September 6, 2007 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: Systems Research and Applications Corporation; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. File: B-299818; B-299818.2; B-299818.3; B-299818.4 Date: September 6, 2007 David P. Metzger, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Caitlin K. Cloonan, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Systems Research and Applications Corporation; and Paul F. Khoury, Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., the protesters. Robert J. Symon, Esq., Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Jeremy Becker-Welts, Esq., and Steven A. Pozefsky, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, for Jacobs Technology, the intervenor. Brent Curtis, Esq., Sean M. Hannaway, Esq., and Bernice A. Pasternak, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Admission of a consultant to a GAO protective order was appropriate, over the objection that the consultant once held a position with the protester and that the consultant's daughter was currently employed by the protester, where the record shows that the consultant had no continuing interest in the protester and the consultant's daughter held a relatively low-level position with the protester in a division that was unrelated to the work to be performed under the protested contract. 2. Protest is sustained in a negotiated procurement for award on a "best value" basis, which provided for evaluation of the degree to which offerors' proposals met or exceeded requirements, where the agency failed to qualitatively assess the merits of the offerors' differing approaches. DECISION Systems Research and Applications Corporation (SRA) and Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) protest the award of a contract to Jacobs Technology under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8721-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering and technology acquisition support services (ETASS) for the agency's Electronic Systems Center (ESC). The protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.[1] We sustain the protests because the record does not show that the agency qualitatively assessed the differences in the offerors' proposals, as required by the RFP. BACKGROUND The RFP provides for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base-year with 2 option years, under which the agency will award fixed-price, labor-hour, or cost-plus-award-fee task orders for advisory and assistance services supporting the ESC. Specifically, offerors were informed that the contract objectives are to provide disciplined systems/specialty engineering and technical support, using established government, contractor and tailored industry processes that encompass the practices and requirements of the ESC Engineering Directorate . . . Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework. RFP, Statement of Objectives (SOO) sect. 2.1. Historically, ESC's engineering and technical support has been provided by government and federally funded research and development center personnel and contractor personnel working under the Information Technology Services Program (ITSP) II task orders.[2] Contracting Officer's Statement (SRA Protest) at 2. The RFP SOO identified 13 ESC support objectives, including the provision of system/program engineering, technical support and technical training, for the acquisition, integration, sustainment, continued evolution, deployment/fielding and installation, operations and field support of ESC Command, Control, Communications and Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C4ISR), Business and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and information systems. RFP, SOO sect. 2.1.a.