Astro Systems, Inc.

B-411881.2 Nov 25, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASTRO Systems, Inc. (ASTRO), of Bethesda, Maryland, a small business, protests the award of contracts to five awardees under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-13-R-0055 issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) for various command, control, communications, computers and intelligence ("C4I")-related services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of ASTRO's technical approach, past performance, and oral presentation. ASTRO also contends that the agency's best-value determination was flawed. 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:  Astro Systems, Inc. File:  B-411881.2 Date:  November 25, 2015 Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. William A. Shook, Esq., for Cambridge International Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Mai Oanh P. Ho, Esq., Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST An agency did not rely on unstated evaluation criteria in evaluating a protester’s proposal where the agency’s evaluation was logically related to, and encompassed by the solicitation’s requirements. DECISION ASTRO Systems, Inc. (ASTRO), of Bethesda, Maryland, a small business, protests the award of contracts to five awardees under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-13-R-0055 issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) for various command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (“C4I”)-related services.[1]  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of ASTRO’s technical approach, past performance, and oral presentation.  ASTRO also contends that the agency’s best-value determination was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND SPAWAR develops, delivers and sustains communications and information capabilities to keep warfighters connected throughout the world.[2]  The RFP and the Statement of Work (SOW) indicated that SPAWAR sought to procure C4I systems acquisition, integration, and engineering services for use in ship, submarine, aircraft, shore, mobile, and unmanned platforms on behalf of the International C4I Integration Program Office (PMW 740).[3]  RFP at 81; Agency Report (AR), Tab 22, SOW, at 1.  The SOW explained that PMW 740 is the program office within the Navy’s Program Executive Office for C4I (PEO C4I) responsible for acquiring, fielding, and sustaining tailored, interoperable C4I capabilities in support of authorized and approved U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) security cooperation programs.[4]  AR, Tab 22, SOW, at 1.  This effort would provide U.S.-allied and coalition nations with tailored, interoperable C4I systems and support in accordance with authorized and approved DoD security cooperation programs, e.g., Foreign Military Sales (FMS).  Id.; RFP at 81. On March 14, 2014, the RFP was issued as a small business set-aside.  The solicitation anticipated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts with hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) for a three-year base period with the option for an additional two‑year ordering period.  RFP at 13, 81.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis.  Id. at 93. The RFP required offerors to prepare three proposal volumes, including, as relevant here, the technical volume which was to address three factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) oral presentations.[5]  Id. at 81-82.  The RFP indicated that technical factors were significantly more important than cost.  Additionally, the technical approach was significantly more important than past performance and the oral presentation, which were of equal importance.  Id.  Offerors were advised that statements in the technical volume that paraphrased or repeated the SOW requirements or that provided insufficient detail to complete the technical evaluation would be inadequate and a basis for rejection.  Id. at 83. As relevant here, Section 4.0 of the SOW included tasks related to areas such as program management; program reviews; design, engineering and integration; shipping, installation and post-installation testing; and sustainment and support.  AR, Tab 22, SOW, at 3-10.  For the evaluation of the technical approach factor, offerors were required to describe their technical approach, capabilities, plans, and process, including any international applications, to satisfy the requirements in Section 4.0 of the SOW.  Id.