ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (70T02021R7554N001)

B-421749.4,B-421749.6,B-421749.8 Aug 29, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Maximus Federal Services, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T020-21-R-7554N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for services to support the operations and maintenance of various agency systems. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals, and the best-value tradeoff decision. 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: ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. File: B-421749.4; B-421749.6; B-421749.8 Date: August 29, 2024 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Lyle Hedgecock, Esq., and Roke Iko, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Amanda Sherwood, Esq., Keith Feigenbaum, Esq., and Kyung Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Maximus Federal Services, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher J. Curry, Esq., and Christian Jordan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under an experience/past performance factor is denied where the protester’s arguments are premised on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation. 2. Protest of agency’s evaluation of proposals under a staffing elements factor is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest that awardee has an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest is dismissed as academic where the agency waived the alleged conflict, and the waiver was consistent with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. DECISION ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Maximus Federal Services, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T020‑21-R-7554N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for services to support the operations and maintenance of various agency systems. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND TSA issued the RFP on March 26, 2021, under the General Services Administration Alliant 2 governmentwide acquisition contract and pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505 procedures. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP sought a contractor to support the operations and maintenance of various mission support systems. Id. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 536.[1] TSA refers to the procurement as OPTIMA, which stands for operations, technology, innovation, and management. COS at 1. The solicitation contemplated issuing a task order with both fixed-price and labor hour contract line items, a 4-month transition-in period, an 8-month base period, and five 12-month option periods. RFP at 454. The solicitation established that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff using the following factors: (1) demonstrated relevant corporate experience and past performance (referred to here as “experience”); (2) technical expertise; (3) staffing/scheduling, key personnel, and transition-in (referred to here as “staffing elements”); (4) oral presentation; and (5) price. RFP at 518-19. The RFP provided that the demonstrated experience factor was the most important factor. Id. at 519. The technical expertise and staffing elements factors were of equal importance, and when combined, they were less important than the experience factor, and more important than the oral presentation factor. Id. The nonprice factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The RFP stated: “the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve a marginal increase in superior technical capability.” Id. at 518. As relevant here, for the experience factor, the solicitation required offerors to provide descriptions of their experience related to four specific aspects of performance[2] and to submit no more than three experience examples.[3] RFP at 503-04.