MAG Aerospace (RS3-23-0029)

B-423396.3,B-423396.4,B-423396.5,B-423396.6,B-423396.7 Feb 02, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MAG DS Corporation d/b/a MAG Aerospace (MAG), of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, protests the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (ManTech), of Herndon, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-23-0029, issued by the Department of the Army for product technical support services. The protester contends ManTech has multiple organizational conflicts of interests (OCI), challenges numerous aspects of the evaluation of proposals and resulting best-value tradeoff, and takes issue with the agency's affirmative determination of responsibility for ManTech. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Matter of: MAG DS Corporation d/b/a MAG Aerospace File: B-423396.3; B-423396.4; B-423396.5; B-423396.6; B-423396.7 Date: February 2, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., and Sarah E. Barney, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., the intervenor. Jacquelyn Weih, Esq., Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Hannah Schaeffer, Esq. Department of the Army, 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 that awardee had disqualifying organizational conflicts of interest and that agency's waiver of the alleged conflicts was insufficient is denied where the waiver was consistent with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 2. Protest arguing agency failed to assess strengths in protester's proposal is denied where the record reflects the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 3. Protest that awardee's costs should have been evaluated as unrealistically low is denied where the record shows the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 4. Protest challenging the agency's affirmative responsibility determination is denied where protester has not demonstrated the contracting officer ignored information expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. DECISION MAG DS Corporation d/b/a MAG Aerospace (MAG), of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, protests the issuance of a task order to ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (ManTech), of Herndon, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-23-0029, issued by the Department of the Army for product technical support services. The protester contends ManTech has multiple organizational conflicts of interests (OCI), challenges numerous aspects of the evaluation of proposals and resulting best-value tradeoff, and takes issue with the agency's affirmative determination of responsibility for ManTech. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of the Army's Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Combined Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1, 5; Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation--titled Product Technical Support Services--sought proposals for the provision of “product technical support services for systems and equipment being produced, fielded, modified or supported by” the Army's tactical network, which “is a communications network” providing “voice, data and video capabilities for use in a tactical environment.” COS/MOL at 5; AR, Tab 13a, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 5. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1‑year base period (including a 30-day transition-in period) and four 1-year option periods.[2] RFP at 1, 17. The solicitation established award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering the following tradeoff factors: (1) transition-in plan; (2) technical;[3] (3) cost/price; and (4) past performance. Id. at 17. The non‑cost/price factors were of equal importance to each other, and when combined were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The transition and technical factors would be rated as meets, exceeds, or does not meet requirement, while the past performance factor would be assigned a confidence rating ranging from no confidence to substantial confidence.[4] RFP at 19-21, 23-24.