Sabre Systems, Inc. (N00421-20-R-0127)

B-420090.3 Jun 01, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sabre Systems, Inc., of Warminster, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to American Systems Corporation, of Chantilly, Virginia. Sabre challenges the award under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-20-R-0127, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for mission system software engineering, development, integration, testing, and in-service support for U.S. Naval aircraft major defense acquisition programs. Sabre contends that the agency's evaluation of American Systems' total compensation plan and its cost realism assessment were unreasonable. Sabre also alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the technical and past performance factors. We sustain 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: Sabre Systems, Inc. File: B-420090.3 Date: June 1, 2022 Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., Seth H. Locke, Esq., Julia M. Fox, Esq., and Paul Korol, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. John E. Jensen, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Ariella M. Cassell, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for American Systems Corporation, the intervenor. Brian W. Ritter, Jr., Esq., Garett S. Unger, Esq., and Gina M. Gascoigne, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, 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 proposed professional employee compensation plan is sustained where the evaluation relied on an unreasonable interpretation of the term “professional employee” to exclude certain categories of workers. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the agency reasonably did not assess additional strengths to aspects of the proposal that met, but did not exceed, requirements. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably equalized offerors’ past performance is denied where the agency assessed each offeror’s past performance record in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Sabre Systems, Inc., of Warminster, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to American Systems Corporation, of Chantilly, Virginia. Sabre challenges the award under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-20-R-0127, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for mission system software engineering, development, integration, testing, and in-service support for U.S. Naval aircraft major defense acquisition programs. Sabre contends that the agency’s evaluation of American Systems’ total compensation plan and its cost realism assessment were unreasonable. Sabre also alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the technical and past performance factors. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the solicitation on October 2, 2020, contemplating the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year ordering period and cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and cost‑reimbursable components. RFP at 1, 2, 73. The RFP sought services in support of the Navy’s Software Engineering Department and the Naval Air Systems Command program managers, including “direct software systems engineering support services throughout the full life cycle of a weapon system from concept development through disposal, [applying] to [n]aval [a]ircraft weapons and support systems.” Id. at 28. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis. Id. at 159. The RFP further informed offerors that the lowest-priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements might not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced offeror was determined to be more beneficial to the government. Id. The RFP also advised, however, that the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional price. Id. Proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three factors (in descending order of importance): (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price/cost. Id. at 160. The technical factor was comprised of three subfactors (in descending order of importance): (a) understanding of the work; (b) workforce; and (c) management approach. Id. The RFP advised that the technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price/cost. Id. The RFP also informed offerors that, while price/cost was “not the most important evaluation factor, [] its degree of importance [would] increase commensurably with the degree of equality” among proposals. Id. The agency received timely proposals from four offerors, including Sabre and American Systems. Agency Report (AR), Exh.