Computer Sciences Corporation

B-411449 Jul 28, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) issuance of a task order to Parsons Corporation, of Pasadena, California, pursuant to request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. DE-01-14, to provide various systems engineering services supporting the MDA's mission. CSC protests that the agency "irrationally assigned a weakness to CSC's proposal based on CSC's proposed staffing," and improperly adjusted CSC's proposed cost. Protest at 1-2. 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:      Computer Sciences Corporation File:                B-411449 Date:              July 28, 2015 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Brian F. Wilbourn, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., and Patrick J. Stanton, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for Parsons Corporation, the intervenor. Capt. Vera A. Strebel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably assigned a weakness to protester’s proposal based on the labor mix that protester proposed for specific solicitation requirements where the agency concluded that the proposed labor mix reflected insufficiently senior personnel. DECISION Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) issuance of a task order to Parsons Corporation, of Pasadena, California, pursuant to request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. DE-01-14, to provide various systems engineering services supporting the MDA’s mission.[1]  CSC protests that the agency “irrationally assigned a weakness to CSC’s proposal based on CSC’s proposed staffing,” and improperly adjusted CSC’s proposed cost.  Protest at 1-2. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2014, the agency issued the RTOP to five contractors, including CSC and Parsons, that had previously been awarded indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for system engineering services.[2]  The solicitation contemplated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order and sought system engineering services, divided into 13 “performance objectives,” that will be performed at various locations including the National Capital Region, Huntsville, Alabama, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.[3]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RTOP, at 0002, 0010, 0014.[4]  In submitting proposals, offerors were instructed to submit a technical volume, a cost volume, a stakeholder summary volume,[5] and a past performance volume.  RTOP at 0006-08.  With regard to the technical volume, the solicitation directed that proposals must include “clear linkages between proposed approach, labor mix, and hours for each labor competency.”  Id. at 6.  With regard to the stakeholder summary volume, the solicitation required offerors to identify the resources being proposed for the various users/stakeholders, stating:   This volume will be available to support the evaluation of proposals by the technical and cost evaluators.  The estimated resources anticipated are the proposed distribution of the total labor hours for each performance objective by the RTOP labor competency levels and locations. . . .  The offeror shall ensure the information provided in the Stakeholder Summary Volume is consistent with the information provided in the Technical Volume. Id. at 0007.       The solicitation contemplated award on a best-value basis and established the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical,[6] cost,[7] small business utilization[8] and past performance.  Id. at 0008.  Finally, the solicitation required proposals to “be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for . . .