deciBel Research, Inc. (HQ0862-24-R-0002)

B-424046,B-424046.2 Feb 18, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights deciBel Research, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to IERUS Technologies, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0862-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), for radar system test and analysis. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the management factor. The protester also challenges aspects of the agency's cost/price evaluation. 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: deciBel Research, Inc. File: B-424046; B-424046.2 Date: February 18, 2026 Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Brian E. Doll, Jr., Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Brian G. Walsh, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips, III, Esq., Morgan W. Huston, Esq., and Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for IERUS Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Major William R. Carpenter, Lieutenant Colonel Cali Y. Kim, and Robert B. Neill, Esq., Missile Defense Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's management proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging agency's cost realism evaluation is denied where upward adjustments to the protester's proposed costs were reasonably based on the protester's proposed approach. 3. Protest of agency's price reasonableness evaluation is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and applicable regulation. DECISION deciBel Research, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to IERUS Technologies, Inc., a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0862-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), for radar system test and analysis. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the management factor. The protester also challenges aspects of the agency's cost/price evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on March 29, 2024, seeking contractor support for flight and ground testing and the analysis of radar systems. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8c, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2‑3. The SOW encompassed flight and ground testing of various radar platforms, as well as the execution of system test-related activities including planning, executing, and analyzing sensor performance in system flight and ground tests. AR, Tab 8c, SOW at 1. The solicitation, issued as a set-aside for small businesses, anticipated award of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee contract with a 3‑year base period and two 3‑year option periods. COS at 3; AR, Tab 10b, Amended Instructions to Offerors at 30. The solicitation advised that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value after a tradeoff considering the following five factors: (1) technical; (2) management; (3) corporate experience; (4) regulatory compliance; and (5) cost/price. AR, Tab 8b, Amended Evaluation Criteria at 4‑5. For the purpose of the tradeoff, the first three factors (technical, management, and corporate experience) were of equal importance, and all non-cost/price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 5. The solicitation informed offerors that even though price would be a substantial factor in the source selection, the competition might result in an award to a higher‑rated, higher‑priced offeror. Id. As relevant here, the management factor was comprised of three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) program management; (2) staffing/human capital management; and (3) transition plan. Id. Under the program management subfactor, the agency would evaluate each offeror's approach to, and understanding of, program management requirements. This would include the offeror's approach to “provide a constant [level of effort] for planning, execution and analysis to support fourteen [hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL)] strings” of listed radars, and to “manage this [level of effort] to execute various permutations of the [ground testing] schedule.” Id. at 9; AR, Tab 10b, Amended Instructions to Offerors at 28.