Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc.

B-414056.4 Dec 04, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., (Sotera), of Herndon, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., B-414056 et al., Jan. 31, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 46, in which we denied Sotera's protest of the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International (ManTech), of Fairfax, Virginia, by the Department of the Army under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) for software and engineering support. Sotera alleges various errors in our decision with regard to our conclusions that the agency's cost realism analysis was reasonable and that Sotera was not an interested party to challenge the agency's evaluation of ManTech's technical proposal. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc. File:  B-414056.4 Date:   December 4, 2017 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., James Y. Boland, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., (Sotera), of Herndon, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., B-414056 et al., Jan. 31, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 46, in which we denied Sotera's protest of the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International (ManTech), of Fairfax, Virginia, by the Department of the Army under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) for software and engineering support.  Sotera alleges various errors in our decision with regard to our conclusions that the agency's cost realism analysis was reasonable and that Sotera was not an interested party to challenge the agency's evaluation of ManTech's technical proposal. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The RFTOP, issued under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16, contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and technical factors.  As relevant here, the solicitation provided that the proposed cost would be evaluated for price reasonableness and cost realism. After receiving proposals from five offerors, evaluating initial offers and revised proposals, the Army rated the offers as follows:   OFFEROR TECHNICAL/ RISK PROPOSED PRICE EVALUATED PRICE COST ADJUSTMENT ManTech Outstanding $151,887,868 $157,868,729 $5,980,861 Offeror A Outstanding $162,759,560 $162,759,560 $0 Offeror B Outstanding $190,680,650 $190,680,650 $0 Offeror C Outstanding $168,440,158 $168,440,158 $0 Sotera Outstanding $207,703,811 $207,703,811 $0 The Army selected ManTech's proposal for award.  In making its tradeoff decision, the agency determined that there were no additional perceived benefits in Sotera's proposal worth its $44 and $49 million cost premium over the proposals of Offeror A and ManTech, respectively.  Sotera protested to our Office, challenging the agency's evaluation of the technical proposals of ManTech, Offeror B, and Offeror C; the cost realism analysis of the four other offers in the competition[1]; and the best-value determination.  In support of its cost realism challenges to ManTech's proposal, Sotera asserted, among other things, that:  (1) the agency's use of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data at the 10th and 25th percentile was flawed and contrary to the FAR's cost realism requirements (Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 5; Protester's email of January 18, 2017); (2) a forward pricing rate agreement (FPRA) included in ManTech's proposal was not binding on the awardee or agency (Protester's email of January 18, 2017); (3) the agency failed to determine whether ManTech's labor rates were too low to retain qualified staff (Protest at 17); and (4) the agency should have applied to the awardee's cost certain adjustments calculated by the protester (Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 26-27).  Sotera also argued that ManTech's technical proposal took exception to mandatory transition milestones identified in the RFTOP.  Comments and 2nd Supp.