ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (RS3-19-0058)

B-419791.2 Nov 30, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Global Force, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. RS3-19-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for worldwide field support for command, control, communication, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems and equipment, including hardware and software support. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated offerors' technical proposals. 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 Advanced Systems International, Inc. File:  B-419791.2 Date:  November 30, 2021 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Matthew L. Haws, Esq., and Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for General Dynamics Global Force, LLC, the intervenor. Tamiesha Robinson-Asbery, Esq., Kathleen Kelly, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal is denied where the protest allegations are not supported by the record, and the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency failed to assign additional strengths to aspects of the protester’s technical proposal and engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and the difference in the evaluation stemmed from differences between the offerors’ proposals. DECISION ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Global Force, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. RS3-19-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for worldwide field support for command, control, communication, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems and equipment, including hardware and software support.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated offerors’ technical proposals.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on July 13, 2020, to firms holding contracts under the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3; RFTOP at 2.[1]  The solicitation sought a contractor to provide worldwide field support in a global range of mission-essential logistics, sustainment, and maintenance services for current and future C5ISR systems, equipment, and ancillary operational requirements.  RFTOP at 3-4.  These services would be performed within seven, worldwide Army Field Support Brigade (AFSB) regions, in support of the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command.  Id. at 4.  The solicitation contemplated award of a hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost‑reimbursement task order for a period of performance consisting of a 90-day transition period, a 9‑month base period, and four 12-month option periods.  Id.  The task order competition was conducted using the procedures at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505.  Id. at 41.  The solicitation provided for evaluation in two phases.  In phase I, offerors were instructed to provide a list of required information, licenses, and statements, and were evaluated as to whether the submissions met the requirements to determine eligibility for phase II evaluations.  Id. at 8-11, 34.  For offerors that proceeded to phase II, the agency would evaluate proposals using three factors:  (1) technical; (2) cost/price; and (3) small business participation.  Id.