ACI Technologies, Inc. (N00014-20-R-0006)

B-420129 Dec 10, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACI Technologies, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), of State College, Pennsylvania, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00014-20-R-0006, for the operation and management of the Navy's electronics manufacturing center. ACI protests multiple aspects of the agency's source selection process, asserting, among other things, that the agency "failed to . . . properly evaluate proposals under the technical, past performance and cost factors." Protest at 1. 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:  ACI Technologies, Inc. File:  B-420129 Date:  December 10, 2021 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Edmund M. Amorosi, Esq., and Jonathan Keller, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Robert Charles Rutherford, Esq., The Pennsylvania State University, for the intervenor. Stephanie J. Quade, Esq., and Adam A. Orr, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated proposals under technical, past performance, and cost evaluation factors and properly made award on the basis of awardee’s technically superior, lower-priced proposal. DECISION ACI Technologies, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protests the Department of the Navy’s award of a contract to The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), of State College, Pennsylvania, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00014-20-R-0006, for the operation and management of the Navy’s electronics manufacturing center.  ACI protests multiple aspects of the agency’s source selection process, asserting, among other things, that the agency “failed to . . . properly evaluate proposals under the technical, past performance and cost factors.”  Protest at 1.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2501(a), the Secretary of Defense has established a “Manufacturing Technology [ManTech] Program” to further national security objectives.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1B, RFP Statement of Work (SOW) at 2.  The ManTech program is intended to “improve the manufacturing quality, productivity, technology and practices of business and workers providing goods and services to the Department of Defense [DOD].”  Id.   Pursuant to DOD Directive 4200.15, the various military departments operate their own ManTech programs and, in that context, the Navy’s ManTech program is implemented through its operation of seven Centers of Excellence (COE).[1]  AR, Tab 7B, Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  The solicitation elaborates that the Navy’s ManTech program is focused on “affordability improvements” for “key acquisition platforms,” which currently include “the CVN 78 Class carrier; DDG 51 Class destroy, FFG(X) Guided missile frigate; VIRGINIA Class submarine/OHIO Replacement Program; and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).”  SOW at 2.  ACI’s protest challenges the agency’s award of a contract to PSU for operation of the Navy’s electronics manufacturing COE; ACI has been the incumbent contractor for that COE since 1995.  PSU is the incumbent contractor for the Navy’s electro-optics manufacturing COE (also referred to as the “Center for Advanced Manufacturing of Electro Optics” or “CAMEO.”)  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2, 14. On April 20, 2020, the agency posted the solicitation on the System for Award Management (SAM) website,[2] seeking proposals for award of a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under which cost-type task orders will be issued.  RFP at 6.  The solicitation provided that source selection would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors:  (1) COE operations/management and business operations; (2) project development/management; (3) key personnel/staffing; (4) small business participation; (5) facilities; (6) cost share; (7) past performance;[3] and (8) cost/price.[4]  Id.