Tactical Engineering & Analysis, Inc. (N0017825R3009-0003)

B-423731 Dec 05, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tactical Engineering & Analysis, Inc. (Tactical), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to TMC Technologies of West Virginia Corporation (TMC), a small business of Fairmont, West Virginia, issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0017825R30090003 by the Department of the Navy for track management services. The protester challenges the Navy's cost realism evaluation and source selection 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: Tactical Engineering & Analysis, Inc. File: B-423731 Date: December 5, 2025 James Y. Boland, Esq., Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., and Patrick J. Brogan, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Brian A. Darst, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman P.C., for TMC2 Technologies of West Virginia Corporation, the intervenor. Candice A. Thomas, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging cost realism analysis is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff is denied where the selection decision was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION Tactical Engineering & Analysis, Inc. (Tactical), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to TMC2 Technologies of West Virginia Corporation (TMC), a small business of Fairmont, West Virginia, issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0017825R30090003 by the Department of the Navy for track management services. The protester challenges the Navy's cost realism evaluation and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement involves naval track management systems. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 11.[1] The RFP defines track management as the identification, tracking, and characterization of attributes of sensor data that feeds the combat or command and control system. Id. Track management is described as a key component of warfare systems relying on highly accurate position, navigation, and time services. Id. The RFP sought proposals for subject matter, systems engineering, software development, and test and evaluation expertise to facilitate, plan, execute, and deliver track management products. Id. The Navy issued the RFP on November 18, 2024, under the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505, as a small business set‑aside to holders of the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation (NxG) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract.[2] RFP at 4, 84; Combined Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and level‑of‑effort task order, issued on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and cost.[3] RFP at 8, 84. The technical factor would be evaluated on a scale of: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 85. The past performance factor would be evaluated using the following confidence scale: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, and no confidence. Id. The RFP explained that the technical factor was more important than the past performance factor, and that when combined the technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than the cost factor. Id. at 84. The RFP further explained that the importance of the cost factor would “increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-cost factors . . . or when the evaluated cost [difference] between Offerors is so significant as to diminish the value of the superiority of the non‑cost factors.” Id. Relevant to this protest, in evaluating cost realism, the solicitation stated: The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of the cost proposal.