B-310825; B-310825.2, DRSC3 Systems, LLC, February 26, 2008

B-310825; B-310825.2, DRSC3 Systems, LLC, February 26, 2008 TITLE: B-310825; B-310825.2, DRSC3 Systems, LLC, February 26, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310825; B-310825.2 DATE: February 26, 2008 *********************************************************** B-310825; B-310825.2, DRSC3 Systems, LLC, February 26, 2008 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: DRSC3 Systems, LLC File: B-310825; B-310825.2 Date: February 26, 2008 David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq., Puja Satiani, Esq., and James G. Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring, LLP, for the protester. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Edward Jackson, Esq., Damien C. Specht, Esq., and Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, an intervenor. Andrew C. Saunders, Esq., and Alex F. Marin, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that firm had developed governmentwide standard applicable to the item being procured, thereby having an unfair informational advantage over other competitors, is denied where record establishes that firm did not have a role in developing the relevant governmentwide standard. 2. A competitive advantage that derives from an offeror's previous performance under a government contract is not an unfair competitive advantage that agency is required to neutralize. 3. Contracting agency engaged in meaningful discussions where agency advised protester of specific weaknesses regarding lack of a selected software architecture approach; agency was not required to also afford the protester an opportunity to cure proposal defects first introduced either in response to discussions or in a post-discussion proposal revision. 4. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 5. Protest that past performance evaluation was unreasonable is sustained where record shows that: the findings in the agency evaluation report were not consistent with the information upon which the findings were based; the agency evaluators could not remember whether they evaluated and gave proper consideration to adverse past performance information regarding the awardee; and the agency did not properly assess the relevance of the offeror's prior contracts. DECISION DRS C3 Systems, LLC protests the award of a contract to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GD) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-06-R-5103, issued by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Department of the Navy, for common enterprise display system (CEDS) display consoles. DRS argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and subsequent source selection decision were improper. DRS also contends that the agency's discussions with the protester regarding its proposal were not meaningful, and that GD had an impermissible organizational conflict of interest. We sustain the protest in part regarding the agency's evaluation of GD's past performance and deny the remainder of the protester's allegations. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, the agency issued the RFP for the CEDS display consoles.[1] The CEDS display console is a workstation configuration comprised of display screens, furniture (e.g., console mounting brackets, chair), human/machine interface devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, joystick), and a common electronics module (CEM), including both a network interface and graphics processor. In general terms, the RFP's statement of work (SOW) required the contractor to design, develop, produce, and support an enterprise family of display systems to be implemented across platform systems on Navy surface and subsurface ships. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, CEDS Source Selection Plan, at 5. The RFP also informed offerors that the CEDS display console procurement would occur in two phases. In Phase I, the Navy intended to award multiple fixed-price contracts for the preliminary design of the display consoles. In Phase II, in which Phase I awardees were to submit detailed business and technical proposals for the actual execution of the CEDS display console project, the Navy intended to select the offeror proposing the best value to the agency.[2] Id. at 5-6. On December 13, the agency awarded Phase I preliminary design contracts to both GD and DRS.