B-299873, General Dynamics Information Technology, September 19, 2007

B-299873 Sep 19, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) protests the award of a contract to Raytheon Technical Services Company (RTSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-06-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Navy for warfighter field operations customer support services. GDIT maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-299873, General Dynamics Information Technology, September 19, 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: General Dynamics Information Technology File: B-299873 Date: September 19, 2007 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Eric W. Leonard, Esq., Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and Jon W. Burd, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for the protester. Mark D. Colley, Esq., Ronald A. Schechter, Esq., Cameron W. Fogle, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Dominique Castro, Esq., Arnold & Porter, LLP, for Raytheon Technical Services Company, an intervenor. Sharon H. Sachs, Esq., Harlan F. Gottlieb, Esq., and Duncan R. Butts, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated cost proposals is sustained where agency failed to use higher of numerous inconsistent proposed rates in calculating awardee's proposed total evaluated price, as expressly provided by solicitation, such that source selection decision was based on consideration of materially understated differential between protester's and awardee's evaluated prices. DECISION General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) protests the award of a contract to Raytheon Technical Services Company (RTSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-06-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Navy for warfighter field operations customer support services. GDIT maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy conducted this acquisition on behalf of the Department of the Army to acquire lifecycle contractor support services (LCSS) comprised of maintenance, supply support, software maintenance, engineering services, instructional services and miscellaneous training support services at over 500 Army and non-Army training installations worldwide. This procurement will consolidate three contracts, one for support of the agency's live training (LT) operations, one for support of its virtual training (VT) operations, and one for support of its constructive training (CT) operations. RTSC previously performed services in support of the LT operations, GDIT previously performed services in support of the CT operations, and Computer Sciences Corporation, a subcontractor to RTSC under the current solicitation, previously performed services in support of the VT operations. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite'quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with time-and-materials (T&M) provisions, to perform the services for a base period of 18 months (6 months phase-in and 12 months full performance), with eight 1-year option periods and a final 6-month option period. RFP sect. B.1.[1] Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the –best value— to the government considering the following evaluation factors: technical, price, past performance, and experience. The technical factor (with subfactors for management and support, functional support requirements, and specialized support requirements) was more important than price, and price was more important than past performance and experience; the non-price factors combined were more important than price. RFP sect. M-2. Technical proposals were to be rated outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory, and were to receive proposal risk ratings of low, medium or high. RFP sect. M-4. The past performance and experience evaluations would be reflected in performance risk ratings of very low, low, moderate, high, very high, or unknown. Id. For pricing purposes, the RFP included six tables (B.1 through B.6) that were to be completed by the offerors. The B.1 table was to include prices for performance of various fixed-price requirements, largely on the basis of lump-sum pricing on a monthly basis for the entire period of performance (the B.1 table also was to include pricing for phase-in activities).