American Systems Corporation (FA7046-21-R-0004)

B-420132,B-420132.2,B-420132.3,B-420132.4 Dec 13, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Systems Corporation (ASC), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to DCS Corporation (DCS), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7046-21-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for fighter test services. The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals, and contends that the awardee has multiple unmitigated impaired objectivity organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). 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:  American Systems Corporation File:  B-420132; B-420132.2; B-420132.3; B-420132.4 Date:  December 13, 2021 John E. Jensen, Esq., David B. Dixon, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., and Toghrul Shukurlu, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. James Y. Boland, Esq., Michael T. Francel, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for DSC Corporation, the intervenor. Colonel Frank Yoon, Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq.,  Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied because the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and not conducted in a disparate manner. 2.  Protest that the awardee had multiple impaired objectivity organizational conflicts of interest is denied because, while the protest was pending, the agency meaningfully considered the potential conflicts arising from current work on other contracts and reasonably determined no conflicts exist. DECISION American Systems Corporation (ASC), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to DCS Corporation (DCS), of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7046-21-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for fighter test services.  The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals, and contends that the awardee has multiple unmitigated impaired objectivity organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 21, 2021, using the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2; Tab 5, Fair Opportunity Proposal Request at 1.[1]  The agency sought proposals for the provision of engineering advisory and assistance services to the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center.  The contractor is to provide support for fighter operational test and evaluation services at multiple locations, including Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico; Nellis AFB, Nevada; Edwards AFB, California; Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona; and at offices in Norfolk, Virginia.[2]  Id.; AR, Tab 10, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 17, RFP at 3-7, 20-31.  The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, taking into consideration one technical evaluation factor and a cost/price factor, with the technical factor being more important than cost/price.  AR, Tab 16, Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award at 1, 5-6.  With respect to cost/price, the agency would evaluate for reasonableness, realism, and balance.  Id. at 8. The technical factor consisted of three subfactors, which listed in descending order of importance were:  (1) program management approach; (2) compliance; and (3) transition.  AR, Tab 16, Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award at 5-6.  The solicitation set forth various components under each technical subfactor, and established that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s proposal under each component to determine if the proposal met, more than adequately addressed, or less than adequately addressed the PWS requirements--meriting assessments of “meets,” “strengths,” or “weakness,” respectively.  Id.