Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

B-410990.3 Oct 05, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (Northrop Grumman) of Herndon, Virginia, protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Defense, Defense Information System Agency (DISA), in connection with earlier protests of a task order issued to Northrop Grumman under request for proposals (RFP) No. E200603 for software development and integration services. Northrop Grumman contends that the corrective action, which included reopening discussions with offerors in the competitive range, is unreasonable and competitively prejudices Northrop Grumman, because its award price and evaluation ratings were disclosed after award. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation File: B-410990.3 Date: October 5, 2015 Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., John P. Janecek, Esq., Craig M. LaChance, Esq., and Brett J. Sander, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for the protester. Sarah L. Carroll, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s decision to take corrective action by reopening discussions with competitive range offerors and permitting them to fully revise their proposals, after the original awardee’s price and evaluation ratings were disclosed, is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that reopening discussions was necessary to correct flaws in the agency’s cost/price, technical, and past performance evaluations. DECISION Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (Northrop Grumman) of Herndon, Virginia, protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Defense, Defense Information System Agency (DISA), in connection with earlier protests of a task order issued to Northrop Grumman under request for proposals (RFP) No. E200603 for software development and integration services.  Northrop Grumman contends that the corrective action, which included reopening discussions with offerors in the competitive range, is unreasonable and competitively prejudices Northrop Grumman, because its award price and evaluation ratings were disclosed after award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on July 23, 2014, to 26 firms holding ENCORE II indefinite- delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts, and sought support for DISA’s Global Combat Support System-Joint Software Development and Integration Services.  Agency Report (AR) at 2; Tab 6, Price Negotiation Mem., at 3; RFP amend. 7, at 1.[1]  The RFP provided for the issuance of a hybrid task order (for a 3-month transition period, a base year, and 3 option years) on a best‑value basis considering the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical/ management approach, present/past performance, and cost/price.[2]  RFP amend. 7, at 1-3, 6.  The non-cost evaluation factors, when combined were significantly more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. at 6.  The solicitation provided detailed instructions for submitting separate technical/management approach, present/past performance, and cost/price proposals, including sanitized and unsanitized copies of cost/price proposals.  Id. at 3-9.  As relevant here, with regard to the technical/management approach factor, offerors were to propose and provide resumes for nine key personnel.[3]  Id. at 4; attach. 13, Key Personnel.  The RFP stated that technical/management approach proposals would be evaluated, among other things, on whether the key personnel proposed meet position requirements and are capable of performing the tasks under the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS).  See RFP amend. 7, at 4. With regard to the present/past performance factor, offerors were to identify up to four current or past (performed within the past 3 years) efforts, or projects, and submit past performance questionnaires for each.  See id. at 5-6; attach. 5, Past Performance Reference Sheet; attach 7, Past Performance Questionnaires.  The RFP stated that the projects would be evaluated and assigned adjectival ratings for relevance and quality, and that relevance would be evaluated by comparing the project to the technical and cost/price evaluation factors.  RFP amend.