DRS Technical Services, Inc.

B-412070 Dec 02, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DRS Technical Services, Inc. (DRS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA) award of a contract to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1028-14-R-0006, for communications systems acquisition, integration, installation, and operations and maintenance in support of deployed mission requirements in Southwest Asia. DRS challenges the agency's best-value tradeoff decision. 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:  DRS Technical Services, Inc. File:  B-412070 Date:  December 2, 2015 Aaron S. Ralph, Esq., Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., and Melissa Prusock, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., John R. Prairie, Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Craig Smith, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for General Dynamics Information Technology, the intervenor. Mark B. Grebel, Esq., and Daniel C. McIntosh, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Laura Eyester, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff and essentially converted the best-value competition set forth in the solicitation into a lowest-priced, technically acceptable competition is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a best-value tradeoff that was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION DRS Technical Services, Inc. (DRS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA) award of a contract to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (GDIT), of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1028-14-R-0006, for communications systems acquisition, integration, installation, and operations and maintenance in support of deployed mission requirements in Southwest Asia.  DRS challenges the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2014, DISA issued the RFP seeking communications system services in support of deployed mission requirements in Southwest Asia.  RFP at 8, 10-11.  The RFP provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, for a one-year base period with four one-year options, on a best‑value basis considering three evaluation factors:  technical/management, including subfactors of equal weight for program management, task order 0001, and task order 0002; past performance; and cost/price.  RFP at 8, 354-56.  Technical/management and past performance were of equal importance, while all the non-cost/price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  RFP at 356. DISA received five proposals in response to the solicitation, including proposals from DRS and GDIT.  The agency prepared several source selection evaluation documents, including the source selection advisory council best-value tradeoff analysis and award recommendation, the source selection authority final decision brief, and the source selection decision.  Agency Report (AR), Tabs 21-23.  The source selection decision set forth the final evaluation results in detail, including the strengths and weaknesses for each offeror.  Id., Tab 23, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1-73.  The evaluation of the awardee’s and protester’s proposals is summarized below: Evaluation Factor/Subfactor GDIT DRS Factor 1: Technical/Management[1]       Subfactor A:  Project Management Plan Acceptable Acceptable   Subfactor B:  Task Order 0001 Acceptable Good   Subfactor C:  Task Order 0002 Acceptable Outstanding Factor 2: Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Factor 3: Proposed Cost/Price $127,310,729 $151,057,340 Factor 3: Evaluated Cost/Price $132,124,527 $152,100,568 Id.