ManTech Systems Engineering Corp.

B-412132 Dec 23, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ManTech Systems Engineering Corporation, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Celeris Systems, Inc., of Anaheim, California, a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-3486, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering, programmatic, and technical support services associated with acoustic and sonar testing. ManTech contends that the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of proposals and made an unreasonable selection 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:  ManTech Systems Engineering Corp. File:  B-412132 Date:  December 23, 2015 David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Amy J. Spencer, Esq., and Daniel Strouse, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. Bryan Arnold, Esq., Gordee Nowicki & Blakeney, LLP, for Celeris Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Robert Jusko, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. 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 the agency’s cost risk analysis, which discussed potential agency actions to mitigate potential unsuccessful task order performance, resulted in a fundamental change to the task order requirements, is denied where the record shows that the agency did not modify the task order requirements and the cost risk analysis was a discussion of the cost risks the agency could potentially face if the awardee failed to perform as required under the task order. DECISION ManTech Systems Engineering Corporation, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Celeris Systems, Inc., of Anaheim, California, a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-3486, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering, programmatic, and technical support services associated with acoustic and sonar testing.  ManTech contends that the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of proposals and made an unreasonable selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on January 8, 2015, sought proposals from holders of indefinite-delivery/indefinite‑quantity contracts under the Seaport Enhanced (SeaportE) multiple‑award program to provide engineering, programmatic, and technical support services to support Surface Ship Radiated Noise Measurement (SSRNM),[1] Fleet Sonar Self Noise (FSSN), Common Acoustic Acquisition System (CAAS),[2] Portable Cetacean Monitoring System (PCMS),[3] 3‑Dimensional Multiplexors (3DMUX),[4] and other Navy range programs.  RFP at 10.  The RFP specified that the required support would include planning, acquisition data collection, reduction, and analysis of different types of noise data; design, operation, and maintenance of equipment systems; and updates of acoustic prediction models based on ships’ radiated noise data.  RFP at 10.  ManTech is the incumbent contractor for these services.  Protest at 11. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-incentive fee task order, with a base and four option years, on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors (with the non-cost factors listed in descending order of importance):  (1) technical approach and capability; (2) management approach; (3) small business subcontracting plan and small business utilization past performance; (4) past performance; and (5) cost/price.  RFP at 50.  The RFP further provided that while the non-cost factors were moderately more important than cost/price, the degree of importance of cost would increase “when the cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of [an offeror’s] technical superiority.”  RFP at 50. The RFP provided that “[t]he contractor shall provide necessary personnel to accomplish all contract work and services within . . . specified timeframes,” and further stated that the contractor shall provide personnel with the required qualifications, necessary licenses, certifications, training, experience levels and security clearances.  RFP at 11.  In this regard, the RFP indicated that the program manager was the only key person for this task order, and provided the minimum qualifications for that position.  Id. at 11-12.  The RFP also identified the other required, non-key labor categories (e.g., senior engineer, junior engineer, scientist, computer systems analyst, software developer or engineer, and data entry operator), and set forth the necessary education, experience, and backgrounds for each labor category.  Id.