KOAM Engineering Systems, Inc. (N6600121R0041)

B-420157.2 Jul 06, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KOAM Engineering Systems, Inc. (KES), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to McKean Defense Group, LLC (McKean), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6600121R0041, issued by the Department of the Navy, for support services to the Naval Information Warfare Systems Center Pacific Network Integration Engineering Facility (NIEF). The protester contends a personal conflict of interest (or the appearance of such) tainted the award decision, and that the Navy's cost evaluation of McKean's proposal was unreasonable. 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: KOAM Engineering Systems, Inc. File: B-420157.2 Date: July 6, 2022 Richard P. Rector, Esq., C. Bradford Jorgensen, Esq., and Thomas E. Daley, Esq., DLA Piper, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Taylor A. Hillman, Esq., and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for McKean Defense Group, LLC, the intervenor. Tracey L. Ferguson, Esq., Department of the Navy, the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that the awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage based on an apparent conflict of interest where one of the awardee’s proposed key persons is married to an agency contracting officer’s representative on the protester’s incumbent contract is denied where the record reflects that the agency official was not involved in the instant procurement and the protester’s cost information from the incumbent contract was not disclosed, or, alternatively, the awardee would not have obtained an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of receiving the information. 2. Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the record demonstrates the upward adjustments to the awardee’s proposed costs were not inconsistent with the solicitation, and that the agency reasonably determined those adjustments did not indicate the awardee lacked an understanding of the agency’s requirements. DECISION KOAM Engineering Systems, Inc. (KES), of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to McKean Defense Group, LLC (McKean), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6600121R0041, issued by the Department of the Navy, for support services to the Naval Information Warfare Systems Center Pacific Network Integration Engineering Facility (NIEF). The protester contends a personal conflict of interest (or the appearance of such) tainted the award decision, and that the Navy’s cost evaluation of McKean’s proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on January 27, 2021, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, anticipating the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, with a 1-year based period of performance and four, 1-year option periods, where task orders will be issued on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 0001.[1] The RFP sought engineering support services for the Naval Information Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s NIEF. Id. at 0012. Specifically, the contractor will provide program management, basic research, end-to-end system design, prototype development, systems engineering, integration, environmental qualification testing, production, software loading, pre-installation testing and checkout (PITCO), deployment, and life cycle support of Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. Id. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) small business participation. Id. at 0120. The evaluation would proceed in four phases. First, the agency would evaluate an offeror’s acceptability on a pass/fail basis.[2] Id. at 0121. Second, the agency would evaluate an offeror’s capability by considering its technical approach, past performance, and small business participation. Id. Under the technical approach factor, the Navy would evaluate the “extent to which an offeror clearly and accurately describes the process, procedures, and/or actions necessary to address” four hypothetical questions/scenarios, so as to demonstrate an offeror’s approach and understanding of the Navy’s requirement.[3] Id.