Science Applications International Corporation (FA701425R0001)

B-423532,B-423532.2 Jul 28, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7014-25-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for modeling and support simulation services. SAIC argues that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate its proposal before establishing the competitive range. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Science Applications International Corporation File: B-423532; B-423532.2 Date: July 28, 2025 Luke W. Meier, Esq., Robyn N. Burrows, Esq., David L. Bodner, Esq., and Shane M. Hannon, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Major Ryan P. Payne, Hector M. Rivera-Hernandez, Esq., and Gretchen Bundy-Ladowicz, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably established a competitive range is denied where the record shows the agency established the competitive range in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and consistent with the results of the offeror’s self-scores. DECISION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7014‑25‑R‑0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for modeling and support simulation services. SAIC argues that the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate its proposal before establishing the competitive range. We deny the protest. DISCUSSION On December 8, 2024, the Air Force issued the RFP to procure modeling and support simulation (M&S) services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2; Protest, exh. 2, RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. The selected contractor will develop modeling and simulation architectures for mission operability and efficiency, implement robust data standards, and enhance cybersecurity measures and engineering capabilities. COS at 2; RFP, PWS at 4. The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a ceiling value of $972 million. COS at 3; RFP at 3. Task orders would be issued on fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, time-and-materials, fixed-price-plus-incentive, and cost‑reimbursable bases. RFP at 3-5. When evaluating proposals, the RFP advised that the agency would evaluate proposals by selecting the highest technical rated offeror at a fair and reasonable price. To aid the agency’s evaluation, the RFP advised offerors to submit their proposals using a seven‑volume format, which included, as relevant here, technical past experience and cost/price volumes. AR, Tab 4, RFP, Section L, Instructions at 7-9. As part of the technical past experience volume, each offeror was instructed to reference a maximum of 10 prior contracts. Id. at 15. Each referenced contract had to meet minimum qualifications, including that it must have been for modeling and simulation support services, it had to have a value of at least $15 million, and it must have either ongoing performance or performance had to have been completed within the past five years. Id. at 16. The RFP instructed each offeror to complete a self-scoring matrix, which was divided into two tables. AR, Tab 4, RFP, Section L, Instructions at 18. One table required offerors to demonstrate their experience performing similar M&S functions. AR, Tab 6, RFP, Self‑Scoring Matrix. This “past experience” table was divided into eight elements. Id. As an example, under task one (program management) the offeror was required to identify the number of contracts referenced in its past experience volume with more than 400 full-time equivalent employees, the number of contracts with a value greater than $750 million, the number of single award IDIQ contracts with more than 20 independently funded task orders, and the years of experience as a prime or subcontractor in managing M&S programs. Id.; AR, Tab 4, RFP, Section L, Instructions at 18-19. The matrix would auto-calculate the score based on the information provided. AR, Tab 6, RFP, Self-Scoring Matrix. The self-scoring matrix also had a “past performance” table for each offeror to report its ratings for the referenced contracts in the past experience volume as recorded in the contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS). AR, Tab 6, RFP, Self‑Scoring Matrix; AR, Tab 4, RFP, Section L, Instructions at 29. This table required each offeror to provide their CPAR adjectival category ratings. AR, Tab 4, RFP, Section L, Instructions at 30-31.