BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. (FA8207-21-R-0001)

B-420860.4,B-420860.5,B-420860.6 Jun 18, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of an integration support services contract to Guidehouse LLP, of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8207-21-R-0001. The Department of the Air Force issued the solicitation for systems engineering and integration services in support of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) organization. BAE Systems challenges the agency's evaluation of professional employee compensation plans, cost realism, and the resulting award decision. 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: BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. File: B-420860.4; B-420860.5; B-420860.6 Date: June 18, 2024 Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Esq., and John M. Satira, Esq., and Leslie Edelstein Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, and Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., and Jennifer K. Bentley, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposed professional employee compensation plans and cost realism is sustained where the record does not demonstrate that the agency conducted an evaluation in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of an integration support services contract to Guidehouse LLP, of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8207‑21‑R‑0001. The Department of the Air Force issued the solicitation for systems engineering and integration services in support of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) organization. BAE Systems challenges the agency’s evaluation of professional employee compensation plans, cost realism, and the resulting award decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The mission of the ICBM organization at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is to “deliver 400 combat capable nuclear missiles that are safe, secure, and effective.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.[1] The ICBM organization includes the program office for the Minuteman III, the current nuclear deterrent force, as well as the program office for the next generation weapon system, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Performance Work Statement at 3. The integration support contract (ISC) provides systems engineering and integration services to the ICBM organization. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The Air Force awarded the predecessor contract (FA-8214-13-C-0001), known as ISC 1.0, to BAE in August 2013. Guidehouse LLP; Jacobs Tech., Inc., B-420860.1 et al., Oct. 13, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 257 at 2. On November 20, 2020, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the Air Force issued RFP No. FA8207‑21‑R‑0001 (at issue here) for the follow-on contract known as ISC 2.0. AR, Tab 1, RFP at 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract with a 5-year base period and the potential for an 18-year overall period of performance. COS at 2; AR, Tab 3, RFP Sections L&M at 1; RFP at 2. Although the RFP included both cost-reimbursement and fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs), it is primarily a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract vehicle. COS at 2-3. The Air Force anticipated awarding five individual task orders with the basic contract. AR, Tab 3, RFP Sections L&M at 1. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability; (2) mission capability; and (3) cost. Id. at 28. The technical capability factor comprised three equally important subfactors to be assessed an adjectival technical rating and an adjectival risk rating: (1) test anomaly root cause; (2) systems engineering; and (3) digital engineering.[2] Id. The mission capability factor comprised four subfactors: (1) workforce management; (2) operational capability; (3) transition approach; and (4) small business participation. Id.