L3Harris Technologies, Inc. (FA7022-21-R-0001)

B-420490 May 03, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L3Harris Technologies, Inc., of Palm Bay, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7022-21-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for software development and engineering services support. L3Harris argues that the agency failed to adequately consider whether Peraton has an organizational conflict of interest that would preclude award to it. 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: L3Harris Technologies, Inc. File: B-420490 Date: May 3, 2022 Andrew E. Shipley, Esq., Philip E. Beshara, Esq., and Douglas W. Gates, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., and Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for Peraton Inc., the intervenor. Lieutenant Colonel Matthew W. Ramage-White, Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to properly consider an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where the record shows that the contracting officer gave meaningful consideration to whether the awardee had an OCI and there is no clear evidence in the record that the agency’s conclusion was unreasonable. DECISION L3Harris Technologies, Inc., of Palm Bay, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7022-21-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for software development and engineering services support. L3Harris argues that the agency failed to adequately consider whether Peraton has an organizational conflict of interest that would preclude award to it. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This protest involves the procurement of the Mission System Support 2 (MSS-2) contract, which serves as the successor to the MSS-1 contract. Under both contracts, the contractor is responsible for providing highly specialized software development and engineering services to support the Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) Nuclear Test Ban Treaty mission.[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. MSS-1 Contract The agency originally awarded the MSS-1 contract to Northrop Grumman Mission Systems. COS at 5. In February 2021, during the final year of the MSS-1 contract, Peraton acquired the business unit of Northrop Grumman responsible for performing the MSS-1 contract. Id. As a result, Peraton became the MSS-1 contractor and is the incumbent contractor for the instant requirement. MSS-2 Solicitation The Air Force issued the MSS-2 solicitation on December 18, 2020, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report, Tab 4, RFP at 1; COS at 3.[2] The solicitation sought a contractor to support AFTAC’s mission at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida, by developing, updating, and maintaining legacy and current system configurations and software. COS at 2. The solicitation anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with four 12-month options. RFP at 3-8, 89. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical capability, past performance and cost/price.[3] RFP at 111. As relevant here, the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS) included a requirement for independent verification and validation (IV&V) and system testing, which requires that “[t]o ensure system sustainability, the contractor shall plan and conduct IV&V of the new developments intended for system integration.” Protest, exh. 2, RFP, PWS § 2.1.4.[4] The Air Force received proposals from two offerors, Peraton and L3Harris. COS at 4. The agency concluded that Peraton’s proposal represented the best value to the government and awarded the contract to that firm. Id. On January 19, 2022, the agency notified L3Harris that its proposal had not been selected. AR, Tab 18, Notice of Unsuccessful Offer at 2. In the Notice, the contracting officer also noted that a “potential OCI concern” had been brought to her attention regarding Peraton’s participation in another contract--the Expert Scientific and Analytical Support (ESAS) 2 contract--prior to evaluation of proposals. Id. at 3. The contracting officer advised that she “formally determined that there was no current or potential organizational conflict of interest that would preclude Peraton’s bidding on or being awarded this contract (MSS‑2).” Id.