ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (B-421560.14; B-421560.16)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, discussions

Date: 8 May 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-421560.14.pdf

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., protested FBI’s issuance of a task order for digital and information technology services to Leidos, Inc., under an RFQ for the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS)--specifically, a task order supporting biometric services. ManTech raised two principal grounds:

(1) The solicitation should have been amended to reflect alleged changes in agency requirements stemming from a new presidential memorandum on in-person work for federal employees, and

(2) the agency misevaluated ManTech’s quotation under the “corporate experience” and “staffing approach” factors, which, ManTech argued, improperly lowered its ratings and cost it the award despite its lower price.

The procurement followed multi-phase down-select procedures with advisory notices after each round. ManTech was repeatedly informed its proposal was not among the most highly rated but continued to participate. After agency corrective action and renewed evaluation (following earlier protests), only ManTech and Leidos remained. The agency assigned ManTech “some confidence” in both corporate experience and staffing approach (and “low confidence” in demonstration, ,which ManTech eventually dropped from protest), criticizing its lack of detail relevant to SAFe agile methods and a reactive approach to staffing. ManTech argued the agency failed to account for new work policies on in-person requirements and challenged the merits and adequacy of both the discussions and evaluations conducted.

Solicitation amendment demanded by government workplace policy changes: GAO dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the presidential memorandum in question directed only federal employees to return to in-person work, did not mention contractors or contractor performance, and ManTech failed to identify any solicitation requirement materially impacted.

Challenges to technical evaluation—corporate experience and staffing approach: GAO reviewed the agency’s rationale and found its assessment (including critiques that ManTech’s referenced prior work was primarily O&M and that its staffing plan was overly reliant on incumbent capture with delayed efforts to recruit externally) reasonable and supported by the record. ManTech’s disagreement was not enough to establish unreasonableness.

Sufficiency of discussions: GAO determined the agency provided fair notice during “discussions,” identifying O&M-centric experience and risks in the staffing plan, and was not required to “spoon-feed” more detail.

Best-value determination: Given the above findings, GAO found the tradeoff decision (selecting Leidos’ higher-priced but technically superior offer) unobjectionable.

The protest was dismissed in part (the amendment demand) and denied in part (the evaluation). The outcome is routine: GAO deferred to the agency’s documented, risk-focused judgments under stated evaluation criteria.

Digest

1. Protest alleging that agency was required to amend the solicitation in response to changing requirements for federal government employees in the executive branch, based on a presidential memorandum and subsequent guidance, is dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest.

2. Protest challenging various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation under the corporate experience and staffing approach factors, and the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision based on those alleged evaluation errors, is denied where the evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.