MAN TECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. USA

Filing 46

PUBLISHED OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (jpk1)

MAN

TECH

INFORMATION

SYSTEMS

&

TECHNOLOGY

CORP.

v.

USA

Doc.

46

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
N o . 09-804C (C o n s o lid a te d with No. 09-805C) (F ile d : April 29, 2010)1 ************************ M A N T E C H , INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ************************ L -3 SERVICES, INC., P l a i n t i ff , v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ************************ P a u l F. Khoury, Washington, DC, for plaintiff ManTech, Inc., and C r a ig A. Holman, Washington, DC, for plaintiff L-3 Services, Inc. Christopher L. Krafchek, William J. Grimaldi, United States D e p a rtm e n t of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, W a sh in g to n , DC, with whom were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
1

P r e - a w a r d Bid Protest; Competitive Range D e ter m in a tio n ; Indefinite D elivery/Indefinite Q u a n tity Contract; Price R e a lis m .

This Opinion was filed under seal on March 29, 2010. On that date, w e requested that the parties provide redactions, which they submitted jointly o n April 16, 2010. Redactions are indicated by [...].

Dockets.Justia.com

J e a n n e E. Davidson, Director, and Kirk Manhardt, Assistant Director, for d e f e n d a n t. Max D. Houtz, Assistant General Counsel, Defense Intelligence A g e n c y, Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, of counsel. O P IN IO N B R U G G IN K , Judge. T h is action is brought pursuant to the court's bid protest jurisdiction. P la in tif f s ManTech, Incorporated and L-3 Services, Incorporated ("ManTech" a n d "L-3"), unsuccessful offerors in Solicitation HHM402-09-R-0050 ("RFP" o r "Solicitation"), allege that the United States, acting through the Defense In te llig e n c e Agency ("DIA" or "agency") has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, a n d in violation of law in excluding them from its competitive range of O c to b e r 7, 2009.2 C u rre n tly pending are cross-motions for judgment on the administrative re c o rd regarding plaintiffs' request for permanent injunctive relief. Oral a rg u m e n t was held March 12, 2010. For the reasons set out below, we deny p l a in tif f s' motions for judgment on the administrative record and grant d e f en d a n t's motion. BACKGROUND O n May 26, 2009, the agency issued the "Solutions for the Information T e c h n o lo g y Enterprises" ("SITE") Solicitation setting forth acquisition p a ra m e te rs for delivering information technology ("IT") services and c a p ab ilitie s to the intelligence community.3 The agency will award about four lar g e businesses and four small businesses an indefinite delivery/indefinite q u a n tity ("IDIQ") contract. The proposals for the large and small businesses a re reviewed separately. The eight winning bidders will be able to compete o n a task order basis over the course of a base year and four one-year options. T h e ceiling amount for the SITE program is $6,600,000,000; the floor is

A related protest was filed concerning the competitive range determination by a small business offeror, Hyperion, Inc. The opinion in Hyperion, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-758, will be issued contemporaneously with this opinion. SITE seeks to support the DIA, the Uniformed Services, the Combatant Commands ("COCOMs"), and other intelligence agencies.
2
3

2

$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 . The Solicitation provides for a competitive range determination (" C R D " ) in order to limit the number of potential bidders with which the C o n tra c tin g Officer ("CO") has to negotiate. The Solicitation sets forth the criteria that DIA must use in making the a w a rd . The Solicitation states that proposals "should be complete and accurate to enable the Government to assess fully [the offerors'] ability to provide the re q u ire d services and whether [the offerors] represent the best value to the g o v e rn m e n t." Administrative Record ("AR") 532. Each proposal consists of s i x volumes, the first a summary and the other five each addressing a s u b s ta n t iv e factor: the Past Performance Plan; Security; the Small Business S u b c o n tra c tin g Plan, the Technical/Management Factor, and the Cost/Price. T h e non-price factors are significantly more important than price; price b e c o m e s a major factor only when other factors are substantially equal. A m o n g non-price factors, the descending order of importance is (1) T e c h n ic a l/M a n a g em e n t; (2) Past Performance Plan; (3) Small Business Plan; a n d (4) Security.4 AR 513-14. W ith in the Technical/Management Factor offerors must show c o m p e t e n c e with respect to five elements arranged in descending order of im p o rta n c e: (1) Technical Experience to functional areas listed in the S t a t e m e n t o f O b j e c t i v e s (" S O O " ) ; (2 ) C o n t r a c t o r ' s S I T E O r g a n iz a tio n /M a n a g e m e n t Team and Proposed Management Structure; (3) C o n tra c to r's Recruiting, Training, and Employee Retention Plan; (4) Transition E x p erien ce ; and (5) Logistics Administration and Worldwide Support C a p a b ility. AR 514. The Technical Experience element requires the offeror to show "the depth and breadth of its experience and expertise performing as a subcontractor with respect to the functional areas . . . ." 5 The Solicitation

The Security factor was pass/fail, but no offerors failed. It is therefore not germane. AR 514. These sixteen functional areas are: (1) Program & Project Management Services; (2) Technology Assessment and Evaluation Services; (3) Systems Engineering; (4) Operations Support Services; (5) Network Operations and Administration; (6) Storage Services; (7) Web Services and Content Management; (8) Acquisition and Property Management Services; (9) Maintenance and Remote Diagnostic Services; (10) Administrative and Special Services; (11) Information Assurance Services; (12) Security Management; (13) SCI Personnel and Information Security Support; (14) Risk
3
5

4

re q u ire s offerors to illustrate their experience and expertise by mapping the ten c o n tra c ts used in the Past Performance volume into a matrix in the T e c h n ic a l/M a n a g e m e n t volume. The Past Performance Factor is based on a narrative of ten contracts or su b c o n tra c ts of a minimum size.6 Its purpose, in looking at projects similar in s c o p e , complexity, and size, is to "measure the degree to which an Offeror has k e p t its previous contractual promises and thus satisfied its customers . . . ." A R 518. The Small Business Plan Factor requires offerors to submit an adequate su b c o n tra c ti n g plan that explains how the offeror will undertake good faith e f f o r ts to use specific, preferred types of small businesses and to provide past p e r f o r m a n c e information demonstrating their experience in utilizing those typ e s of small businesses as subcontractors.7 The standard provided by the

Management; (15) Testing and Verification Services; and (16) Training Services. AR 1339-41. The baselines for the contracts submitted in the Past Performance volume are: The offeror's demonstrated performance was on related efforts completed within the past three years or is on-going. The combined past performance efforts cited were at least valued at $10,000,000 including all options. Customer assessments of previous contracting efforts indicate the scheduling standards were achieved without affecting cost or performance. Quality of services provided were professional and at the level expected by the customer. Past Performance Information demonstrates the offeror's team can effectively manage large contracts similar in scope, complexity and size. Past Performance information demonstrates previous teaming arrangements and positive business relationships. AR 519. Specifically, the offeror must "explain how the proposed goals are realistic and that the offeror will expend good faith efforts to use small business, veteran owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small
4
7 6

S o lic ita tio n measures the offerors by the organizational process they use for s e le c tin g the various types of small businesses, by the offeror's own broad h is to ric a l data on usage of the preferred types of small businesses, and by the o f f e ro r's own specific past performances "in awarding subcontracts for the s a m e or similar products or services to small business[es]." AR 521. The Cost/Price factor is an evaluation of price reasonableness and price re a lis m based upon the offeror's proposed ceiling labor rates for a number of p o s itio n s in several world-wide locations, as well as composite mark-up rates. T h e agency evaluates the reasonableness and realism of proposed labor rates b y multiplying them by a predetermined and undisclosed (to offerors) quantity o f hours. Price only "becomes a major factor in award selection when other c rite ria are substantially equal." AR 522. The Solicitation calls for a hierarchical, panel-based system to review t h e proposals. There are five evaluation panels ("panels")--one for each of th e factors--composed of experts in the relevant field. Each panel looks at its c o r re s p o n d i n g volume only and ignores any cross-references to separate v o lu m e s. Each panel may, however, read other volumes if necessary, but it d o e s not have access to the Cost/Price volumes. Rather, a separate evaluation tea m performs Cost/Price evaluation. After a panel completes its review, it then documents the evaluation, first in a Consensus Report for each offeror, a n d then in a Panel Report for all offerors under that factor. The Source S e le c tio n Advisory Council ("SSAC"), composed of senior representatives of th e intelligence community, then prepares a report for the Source Selection A d m in is tra to r ("SSA"), summarizing the findings of the panels. The SSAC a ls o performs the "Best Value Paired Trade-Off Analysis," bringing into play th e Cost/Price factor. The SSA makes both the CRD and the final decision to a w a rd , documenting each. The Contracting Officer is the government official t h a t deals directly with the vendor community. She also conducts the price a n a l ys is process.

business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business subcontractors to the maximum practicable extent . . . [and] provide past performance information demonstrating their experience in [the above]." AR 520.
5

T h e panels utilize notational ratings in their reports. The four T e c h n ica l/M a n a g e m e n t Factor ratings are: "Exceptional (Blue);" "Acceptable (G re e n );" "Marginal (Yellow);" and "Unacceptable (Red)." AR 524. Each c o lo r expresses a certain level of "Technical Capability," "Strengths," and " W e a k n es s e s." Id. For example, the two ratings most applicable to plaintiffs' p r o te s ts are more particularly described as follows:
Color Acceptable Green Technical Capability The proposal is satisfactory; the offeror is capable of meeting performance requirements. The proposal can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, and appreciable increase in cost, however, special Contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will be able to overcome difficulties. Strengths Some strengths exist that are of benefit to the Government; strengths clearly offset weaknesses. Weaknesses A few weaknesses exist; they are correctable by the Contractor; minimal additional Government contract administration anticipated. A few weaknesses exist; they are correctable by the Contractor with moderate additional Government contract administration.

Marginal Yellow

The proposal is marginal; Government doubts the offeror will be able to meet all performance requirements. Based on the Offeror's performance record, doubt exists that the Offeror can satisfactorily perform the proposed effort.

Some strengths exist with limited benefit to the government.

Id. T h e Past Performance notational rating descriptions are more general. T h e five Past Performance ratings (i.e. colors and adjectives) are identical to th e Technical/Managment ratings save for the fifth: "Neutral (White)." AR 5 2 5 . Each rating corresponds only to a "Description." For example, the p e rtin e n t ratings for plaintiffs are:
Rating Description

6

Exceptional Blue

Excellent past performance ratings in most functional areas. Very Good, ontime performance is consistently demonstrated. No doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record that the offeror can satisfactorily perform the proposed effort. Acceptable past performance ratings in most functional areas. The proposal could have an inconsistent achievement of acceptable performance; however, minimum doubt exists, based on the Offeror's performance record, that the offeror can successfully perform the proposed effort.

Acceptable Green

Id . T h e Small Business Plan notational ratings are also germane to this p ro te st. They too follow the color scheme of the previous ratings--from E x c e p tio n a l (blue) to Unacceptable (red). The two ratings germane to this case a re :
Rating Exceptional Blue Description Plan contains a robust Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which includes all business types. PPI [past performance information] was relevant and demonstrated significant experience in awarding SB [small business] contracts. Plan contains an adequate Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which includes a variety of small business types. PPI was relevant and demonstrated an acceptable level of experience in award of small business subcontracts.

Acceptable Green

A R 526. In response to the Solicitation, twenty-nine businesses offered p ro p o s a ls . Eleven of those were large businesses. On October 7, 2009, the 7

C o n tra c tin g Officer, acting pursuant to the SSA's determination and based on th e rankings compiled by SSAC, made a CRD of six small and six large b u s in e s s e s . N e ith e r ManTech nor L-3 was among the six large businesses. M a n T e c h received a debriefing from the DIA on October 23, 2009, in which it learned that its proposal garnered a [...................] for the T e c h n ic a l/M a n a g em e n t factor, an [....................] for its Past Performance fa cto r, and an [....................] for the Small Business Plan factor. ManTech's o v e r a l l proposal ranked it [.........] out of the eleven large business offerors. L -3 received its debriefing on October 23, 2009, in which it learned that its p ro p o s a l garnered a [...................] for Technical/Management, an [ ....................] for Past Performance, and an [....................] for its Small B u s in e ss Plan. L-3's overall proposal ranked it [....] out of the eleven large b u s in e s s e s . ManTech and L-3 filed these protests on November 20, 2009. DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction and Standing The Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act ("ADRA"), grants this court jurisdiction "to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2009). Standing to invoke this jurisdiction is afforded to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interests would be "affected by the award of the contract or by the failure to award the contract." Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The government does not challenge plaintiffs' standing as "interested part[ies]." See Weeks Marine, Inc., v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The scope of the Solicitation is vast: about eight businesses, depending on the eventual number of awards, will have access to a significant amount of the government's purchases of IT security for up to the next five years. ManTech and L-3 both specialize in providing technology and security to the U.S. national security community; both have submitted proposals. Plaintiffs thus satisfy the standing requirement.

8

II. Plaintiffs' Claims T h e Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") limits our review of the m e rits , allowing us to set aside an agency's decision only if it is "arbitrary, c a p ric io u s , an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2006). The arbitrary or capricious standard means that w e will sustain an agency decision that has a rational basis. See, e.g., Motor V e h ic le Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 2 9 , 43 (1983); Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1 0 5 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential."). Specifically, we may not substitute our judgment for th a t of the DIA. Id. Challenges that allege the decision was not in accordance w ith applicable law "must show a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable s t a t u t e s or regulations." Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. U n ite d States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Moreover, the greater the discretion granted to a contracting officer, "the more difficult it will be to prove the decision was arbitrary and capricious." Galen Med. Assoc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In "best value" procurements such as this, we give greater deference to the DIA than we would "if the contract were to have been awarded on the basis of cost alone." Id. at 1330. Plaintiffs raise the following issues for disposition: whether the DIA's ratings on the Technical/Management and Small Business factors were arbitrary with respect to either bidder; whether the DIA's Past Performance rating for L-3 was arbitrary; whether DIA price realism analysis was arbitrary; and whether the DIA's overall CRD was arbitrary.
A. ManTech 1 . Technical/Management Factor a . Risk Assessment

ManTech's primary argument is that DIA improperly performed the required risk assessment. It argues that if the [.............] risk assessment assigned by the Past Performance Panel had been included in the consideration of the Technical Management Panel, which it contends the

9

Solicitation requires, then it is possible or even likely that ManTech would not have received a [..................] rating on its Technical/Management factor. This sharing of information was required, it contends, because the "Risk Assessment" instructions to the Past Performance Panel include the following: The government will perform a risk assessment of each Offeror's proposal . . . . Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with the Offeror's experience and will consider each Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP. The risks which will be assessed, are those associated with technical aspects of the program. Risks may occur as a result of a particular technical methodology, operational process, or economic impacts associated with these approaches. . . . For any risk identified, the evaluation will address the Offeror's proposal for mitigating those risks and why that approach is or is not manageable. All risk assessments will be included as part of the adjectival/Color Rating in the Technical/Management and Past Performance Factors. AR 520 (emphasis added). ManTech emphasizes the italicized language. It contends that the risk assessments referred to are those of the Past Performance Evaluation Panel, thus clearly obligating the DIA to ensure that the [.............] results ManTech achieved were known to the Technical/Management Evaluation Panel prior to its assignment of adjectival ratings. The evidence for potential prejudice, ManTech contends, is that the Past Performance ranking provided that [...........................................................................................................] AR 11840. The Technical Management ranking, on the other hand, provided that, [......................................................................................................................] AR 11966. Defendant argues that the panels were to operate completely independently of each other, and that the procedural step plaintiff argues for is a misreading of the Solicitation. The Solicitation incorporates the agency's answers to offerors' questions; the answers, defendant argues, made it clear
10

that the bidders' submissions to each panel are strictly segregated.8 ManTech therefore was on notice of an apparent inconsistency in the Solicitation which should have been flagged by plaintiff before it bid. We disagree with defendant's argument that ManTech waived its right to assert its construction of the risk assessment language. The fact that the panels evaluate separate submissions does not mean that the evaluators cannot share their own observations. Nor do we find it necessary to closely parse the Solicitation to determine if defendant is correct that each panel was to do a completely independent risk assessment. There is plainly overlap in the information the bidders were called on to provide to the Past Performance Panel and to the Technical/Management Panel. Both panels had before them the same [...] prior contracts for evaluation, and both evaluations had to be performed in the context of the SOO. But the information was not identical, and more importantly, we find that the inquiries the two panels conducted were completely different in substance and purpose. In both instances, ManTech provided a chart of [...] contracts mapped to SOO areas, but it added [...] contracts to the chart for the Technical/Management Panel's review. ManTech's [........] submission to the Technical Evaluation Panel included the substance of the information in the [.......] submission to the Past Performance Evaluation Panel, but went into substantially greater detail linking ManTech's contract experience to the individual components of the SOO. Past performance evaluators were given the following instructions: [.................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................

"[P]ast performance will be evaluated separately and at a different time b y a different team [panel]." AR 1546. Also, "[o]fferors should not assume th a t separate teams [panels] will cross reference or even be given access to v o lu m e s from another proposal area." AR 1514. And, "Volume V should s ta n d alone." Id.

8

11

.................................................................................................... ..................................................] AR 518. The evaluators were to make the following assessments, after contacting the clients represented by the bidders' previous contracts: Customer assessments of previous contracting efforts indicate the scheduling standards were achieved without affecting cost or performance. Quality of services provided were professional and at the level expected by the customer. Past Performance Information demonstrates the offeror's team can effectively manage large contracts similar in scope, complexity and size. Past Performance Information demonstrates previous teaming arrangements and positive business relationships. AR 519. Without in any way denigrating the importance of this evaluation, we view it to be fundamentally different from the task given to the Technical/Management Evaluation Panel. An inquiry into the quality of service, as measured by customer satisfaction, adherence to scheduling, and ability to team with partners, could produce meaningful results without any connection to whether the work done afforded the bidder experience in the precise subject of the Solicitation. Although the prior contract experience had to be "similar" in size, scope, and complexity, and involve "related" work, we view these words as intentionally not calling for detailed experience doing the same work that is the subject of the Solicitation. How a company manages any job is relevant to risk, but it is not the same question put to the Technical/Management Evaluation Panel. Those evaluators were tasked to ensure that the bidders had the "depth and breadth of [] experience and expertise," AR 514, to "meet the requirements for each of the functional areas." AR 517. In other words, the level of experience the
12

bidder has doing all aspects of the SOO. Among the more particularized standards, the panel was to ensure that "[t]he offeror demonstrates an understanding of the applicable information systems' technical standards required to enable information sharing, integration, and interoperability by using best practices and align the evolving architecture with overarching federal, IC and DOD architecture guidance," and that the offeror "provides an understanding of the US and allied forces' logistics support system and proposes an integrated solution that allows efficient and rapid distribution of assets between DOD and its strategic partners, especially during times of national crisis." Id. ManTech believes that the following narrative description, offered to support its [.............] rating for Past Performance, might have persuaded the Technical Evaluation Panel to come to a different result: [.................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..............] AR 11840. Only the last sentence arguably intrudes on the Technical Evaluation Panel's responsibilities, but it has to be viewed in connection with the previous four sentences, which answer questions raised in the Past Performance standard. An exceptional ability to [........................................................................................................................ .....................]would not help the Technical Evaluation Panel to determine whether ManTech had the necessary expertise and experience to do the constituent elements of the SOO. In short, even if the Solicitation contemplated that the Past Performance rating would be furnished to the Technical Evaluation Panel, we view that omission as non-prejudicial.
b. Assignment of [..............] A g en cies must evaluate proposals solely on the factors and subfactors s p e c if ie d in the solicitation. See 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (2009). Here, the S o lic ita tio n lays out five elements and nine standards for the 13

T e c h n ic a l/ M a n a g e m e n t Factor. Of the nine standards for the T e c h n ic a l/M a n a g em e n t factor, the first addresses technical experience. The tec h n ica l experience standard ensures that "[t]he offeror has experience to m e e t the requirements for each of the functional areas identified in the SOO." A R 517. The offeror must "provide the depth and breadth of its experience a n d expertise . . . with respect to the functional areas . . . ." AR 514. The Technical Evaluation Panel assigned ManTech [......................] in O p e r a tio n s Support Services and in Information Assurance Services. M an T ec h disputes [.....] [............................................................................................................. ......................................................................................... . . . . . ............................ ............................................................................................... . . . . . ...................... .....................] The evaluation panel assessed ManTech a [ ...................................................] for Operations Support Services because it [ .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................ ..........................................................................] AR 12084 (emphasis added). I t also received a [....................] in the area of Information Assurance Services: [ .................................................................................................................] 9 M a n T e c h argues that the Solicitation does not require offerors to d e sc rib e how they met or exceeded performance requirements on prior c o n tra c ts , but merely whether "[ManTech] has experience [] to meet the re q u ire m e n ts for each of the functional areas identified in the SOO." AR 517. The evaluator's emphasis on "how," ManTech argues, strays from the re q u ire m e n ts of the Solicitation.

9

The evaluation went on to explain:

[ .......................................................................................... .......... ................. . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................................... ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . ............................................... ....................................................................... .. . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . . .......................................................................................... . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................... ..................................................................................................] 14

T h e technical experience standard required offerors to detail whether th e y had previous experience performing work similar to the work required by th e SITE SOO. Defendant thus counters that "how" offerors meet the re q u ire m e n t s of the Solicitation is not substantively different from whether th e y meet those requirements and thus was fair game for the evaluators. The word "how" only appears once in the Technical/Management ev alu a tio n standards: "The offeror provides a description of the company's b u s in e ss planning and management processes and demonstrates an u n d e rs ta n d in g of how to apply its resources across the enterprise." AR 1342. In s tru c tio n s to the evaluators do direct them to assess "[w]hether the proposal m e e ts or fails to meet the standard." AR 566; see also AR 564. We agree with d e f en d a n t that, in light of the emphasis in the standards on "the depth and b re a d th of [the offeror's] experience and expertise . . . with respect to the f u n c tio n a l areas identified in the SOO," the term "how" is legitimate shorthand f o r "whether" the offeror met the evaluation standards. AR 514. ManTech claims that evaluators treated bidders [........................] d if f e re n tly in this respect by not insisting that they show "how" they met or e x c ee d e d standards, as reflected by the fact that these [...] companies [ ................................................................] We disagree. Evaluators concluded that ManTech did not provide s u f f ic ie n t detail in [...........................] the Operations Support Services f u n c tio n a l area of the SOO. AR 12084. [.....] evaluation reflects that it p ro v i d e d enough detail in [.......] of the twelve. The evaluators have the discretion to characterize [...] bidder's proposal [ ............................................................] L ik ew ise, according to ManTech, [..................] proposal did not receive a [................................] in Operations Support Services, yet it failed to show " h o w " it performed previously. Our review of [..................] proposal with re sp e c t to Operations Support Services, which is nearly [...............], reflects t h a t it offered numerous examples of "how" it performed other work. [ ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................................................... ......................................................................................................... . . . . . ............ ..........................] The evaluators also assigned ManTech a [....................] in "Information A s s u ra n c e Services" because it provided little or no detail about its experience 15

in [......................] service areas. ManTech claims that it deserved [............................] which the evaluators gave [...........................................] M a n T e c h 's competitors, however, failed to provide enough experience in th re e , five, and eight service areas respectively. It was within the discretion o f the DIA evaluators to determine that ManTech's lack of experience in [......] o f the areas warranted a [....................]. c. Weight Given to the [..........................] M a n T e c h next argues that the DIA elevated the relative importance of the [...] SOO areas for which it received [......................], Operations Support S e rv ice s and Information Assurance Services. ManTech's argument has little s u p p o rt. The evaluators referred to Operations Support Services as a "critical c o re functional area," but ManTech had [......................], all relating to d if f e re n t functional areas within the SOO. Other offerors had the same T e c h n ica l/M a n a g e m e n t Factor rating, with a similar number of [..........], all w i th in different functional areas. Thus the evaluators did not d isp ro p o rtio n ately elevate the relative importance of Operations Support S e r v ic e s and Information Assurance Services. d . DIA's Assignment of [............] to ManTech's Technical/Management Proposal M a n T e c h goes on to argue that the DIA unreasonably assigned [..........] i n its proposal. The evaluators assigned [................] throughout the [....] elem en ts of ManTech's Technical/Management proposal. ManTech challenges s e v e ra l of these assigned [..........], which pertain to [.............] SOO areas. i. Storage Services F irs t, ManTech argues that it did not deserve [..........] in Storage S e rv ic e s , in part by relying on its Past Performance Rating. But as we e x p la in e d previously, the Technical/Management inquiry into depth and b re a d th of experience is distinct from the Past Performance examination of w h e th e r ManTech could manage contracts of similar scope, size, and c o m p le x ity. ManTech also argues that the evaluators did not credit or understand M an T ec h 's storage experience under [...] previous contracts [................]. M a n T e c h 's proposal did not use the word [.........] in describing its experience 16

a s to these contracts. AR 4749. Although the [....] synopsis does show that M a n T e c h [ ........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................... ..............] The evaluator's discretionary evaluation is not an error. L ik e w is e , the [....] contract synopsis mentions ManTech's addition of [............................], but the evaluators considered that [ ..........................................................................................] AR 12083. It is n o t for us to regrade ManTech's proposal. See E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 7 7 F.3d 445, 449 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("technical ratings . . . involve discretionary d eterm in atio n s of procurement officials that a court will not second guess"). ii. Acquisition and Property Management Services M a n T e c h questions the [........] assigned with respect to Acquisition and P r o p e rty Management Services. The evaluators critiqued ManTech for not addressin g [............................................................................] ManTech argues th a t the evaluators overlooked its reference to a contract which required [....] ex p erien ce , although the contract synopsis did not use the phrase [.......] [.................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ...................] A R 4752. A s defendant suggests, this language buttresses the evaluators' rating. P la in ly, [....] does not comprise all [...........................................] Rather, [....] c o n stitu te s but one area of [............................] "Undoubtedly, an offeror c a rrie s the burden of presenting `an adequately written proposal . . . .'" See W e ste c h Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 272, 296 (2007) (quoting U n ite d Enter. & Assocs. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 1, 26 (2006)). The e v a lu a to rs would need a leap of logic to assume ManTech had [....] experience f ro m its proposal; it is not the evaluators' job to make that jump. 2. Small Business Plan Factor M an T ec h argues that its Small Business Plan Factor rating was arbitrary a n d unequal. First, ManTech points out that the Small Business Plan Panel R e p o rt assessed it a weakness for "not demonstrat[ing] a commitment to 17

e x c ee d proposed DIA's baseline goals." AR 11902. Defendant responds that th e consensus report, the source selection committee report, the source s e le c tio n decision and the debriefing slides alike do not repeat or even r e f e re n c e this "weakness." It contends that the panel reference to a weakness w a s in error and that the error was harmless. The consensus report was the first documentation of the evaluation p a n e l's findings. The consensus report included no strengths or weaknesses f o r ManTech's Small Business Plan proposal and assigned ManTech its [ ................] rating. ManTech's rating of [............] was therefore generated in itia lly without the possibility of a taint from the subsequent introduction of th e erroneous weakness. The Small Business Evaluation Panel then drafted the J u ly 17, 2009 Small Business Panel Report with the information from the e a rlie r consensus reports, where the "weakness," along with a strength, makes its first and last appearance. None of the subsequent references to ManTech's S m all Business Plan evaluation, the Source Selection Evaluation Team Report (" S S E T Report"), the Source Selection decision, nor the debriefing material, m e n tio n that weakness or the strength. We conclude that the error was without in ju ry. See Andersen Consulting v. United States, 959 F.2d 929, 935 (Fed. Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ("De minimis errors are those that are so insignificant when considered ag ain s t the solicitation as a whole that they can safely be ignored . . . ."). O n the assumption that the word "strength" that appears in the Panel R e p o rt was intentionally used, ManTech also argues that it must not have been c o n sid e re d , otherwise its treatment would have been inconsistent with the way o th e r bidders were evaluated. It points out that [.................] which received a n exceptional rating, was given a strength for its [...........] small business p a rticip a tio n , which exceeds the goals of the SITE Solicitation. The strength th a t appears on ManTech's Small Business Panel Report also notes that it p ro p o se d exceeding that goal. O u r initial observation is that, if we are correct that the word "strength" w a s not intentionally used and was never considered by either the Small B u s in e ss Plan evaluation panel or by subsequent reviewers, then there is no a p p a re n t contradiction. We note that even if the strength on which ManTech relies was intended as an accurate assessment, there is still no necessary c o n tra d ic tio n between how ManTech and [................] were treated. The e v a lu a tio n was not limited to whether they exceeded DIA's goals numerically. T h e evaluator's rationale for the strength assigned to [................] went into s u b s ta n tia lly more detail and was certainly not identical to the description of 18

M a n T e c h 's strength. Moreover, the initial panel reports reflect substantially m o r e enthusiasm for [.................] plan. It is certainly within the Panel's d iscretio n to treat one proposal as [..........] and the other as [............] Finally, ManTech contends that it was treated unequally with respect to the Small Business Factor based on a comparison to the Panel's description o f another competitor's plan, that of [.........] received an [...........] rating after th e evaluators noted, among many other things, that the company historically h a d subcontracted [...] of its work to subcontractors and [ ........................... . ....................................................] AR 11904. ManTech p o in ts out that it has historically subcontracted [...] of its work and offered to u se [...........] such small business teaming partners. ManTech contends that it to o should have been assigned a [.........] based on these numbers. Even if the use of the term "strength" with respect to ManTech was inten tio n al, we note that the description of [.....] "strengths" is far more e x ten siv e and particularized and certainly not limited to raw numbers. In fact, th e "strengths" paragraph does not even mention [.........................] small b u s in e ss participation. AR 6207. We find that DIA's evaluation of M a n T e c h 's small business plan was not arbitrary. 3. The Competitive Range Determination T h e Solicitation sets out the process by which the SSAC and SSA make th e final CRD: 7 .0 FINAL SOURCE SELECTION DECISION (also applicable to Competitive Range determination and evaluation of Final P r o p o s a l Revisions) 1 . All proposals will first be ranked in descending order, b a se d on individual aggregate noncost/price evaluation factor s c o re s in one column and next to each score the associated a g g re g a te cost/price. 2 . For each proposal that ranks HIGHEST in BOTH n o n -c o st/p ric e as well as cost/price, award will be rec o m m en d ed , based on an aggregate score rank list. If s u c c es s iv e proposals have a higher cost than a previous p ro p o s a l, a paired trade-off best value analysis will be c o n d u c te d as follows: 19

a . A recommendation will be made with accompanying ra tio n a le explaining why or why not the additional delta in cost/price is or is not worth the delta in noncost/price w h e n paired with each subsequent proposal. This tra d e -o f f will continue for all proposals to establish a C o m p o s ite Best Value Final Ranking recommendation. b . From this Composite Best Value Final Ranking R e c o m m e n d a tio n , following consultation with Source S e le c tio n Advisors the SSA will make a final source s e le c ti o n . A R 527. In performing the "paired trade-off best value analysis," the SSAC first ra n k e d all proposals one through eleven based on non-cost factors. It then did a comparison between a higher non-cost ranked proposal and the next lower r a n k e d proposal if the lower ranked proposal was also lower priced. This p ro d u c e d a final ranking, in which ManTech remained in [.............]. At the end o f that re-ranking, the SSAC eliminated the five lowest-ranked offerors. T h e following table depicts the result of this tradeoff analysis:
Final Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 Offeror Non-Cost Ranking 1 3 2 5 4 6 7 8 10 10 11 Cost Ranking 8 1 6 2 9 7 3 5 4 11 11 Price

In the table above, for example, [....] displaced [...............] because its p rice was over [............] less than [.................]. By a similar comparison, DIA elec ted not to have ManTech displace [....] despite the fact that ManTech's p r o p o s a l cost [..................] . T h e SSA C c o n c l u d e d tha t [ .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................................................. 20

....................................................] In accepting that recommendation, the SSA c o n c u r re d with the elimination of ManTech based on the following analysis: [ .................................................................................................... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . .......................................................................... ............................................. . . . . . . . . . ............................................... ........................................................................ . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................................] A R 12211. ManTech argues that the Solicitation is not clear whether the "trade-off b e s t value analysis" requires the DIA to compare only against the proposal im m e d iate ly next in line or with every proposal further down the line. In this c a se , ManTech argues that the DIA also had to justify [.....] higher price in c o m p a ris o n to ManTech. The Solicitation refers to "a paired" analysis: "If successive proposals h a v e a higher cost than a previous proposal, a paired trade-off best value a n a lys is will be conducted." AR 527. Although it also uses the term "each s u b s e q u e n t proposal," AR 527, in performing that paired analysis, the DIA in te rp re te d this to mean each successive pairing of offerors. See AR 12167-70. W e believe this is a fair interpretation of the Solicitation. A comparison across m o r e than two offerors would by definition put at least three offerors s im u lta n e o u s ly at play. In any event, we find that the possibility of prejudice is remote. The S S A C chose to maintain [... ]in a higher final position than [...] despite a price w h ic h was somewhat higher. It therefore did not perform a comparison b e tw e e n [...] and ManTech. [...] and [...] were both ranked [.............] with re sp e c t to the Small Business Factor, unlike ManTech, which was ranked [ .............] As to the Past Performance factor, ManTech was ranked [..............] w h e re a s [...] and [...] were both ranked [.............] But the most important f a cto r was Technical/Management, as to which [...,] like [....] was ranked [ .............] unlike ManTech which was ranked [...............] Within that ranking, th e differences between [...] and ManTech are noticeable. [...] received 4 s tre n g th s , one weakness and one significant weakness. ManTech, on the other h a n d , 21

[ ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................... ....................... . . . . . .............................................................................................. ............................. . . . . . ........................................................................................ ............................] Price only became a "major factor in award selection when o th e r [non-cost] criteria are substantially equal." AR 522. Here they were not. A lth o u g h we conclude that a direct price tradeoff between [...] and ManTech w a s not required, we believe that the likelihood of a different result is too re m o te to warrant a remand, even if it had been contemplated. The agency's emphasis on the Technical/Management factor was not a n abuse of discretion or inconsistent with the Solicitation. The agency has s u b s ta n t ia l discretion when, as in this case, the award will be based on "best v a lu e " rather then simply on price. See Galen Med. Assoc., 369 F.3d at 1330. It was certainly not an abuse of discretion to establish the T e c h n ic a l/M a n a g em e n t factor as the most important factor, and, within that f a cto r, to make technical experience in the SOO areas the most important e lem e n t. AR 513-14. The contracting officer also has wide discretion to limit th e competitive range for "efficient competition." 10 U.S.C. § 2305(b)(4) (2 0 0 9 ); 48 C.F.R. § 15.306(c)(2) (2009). Here, the Solicitation specifically a llo w s the contracting officer and the SSA to limit the competitive range on th e basis of efficiency to all but the most competitive proposals. The e v a lu a to rs were well within their discretion in assigning ManTech a [..........] ra tin g despite its [...........] Past Performance rating and the SSA was within his d is c re tio n in limiting the competitive range to [............] proposals. ManTech has not shown that the agency acted in an arbitrary way in its tec h n ica l evaluation, its cost/price tradeoff, or its CRD. The decision to ex clu d e ManTech from the CRD was not improper. B . L-3 1 . Technical/Management Factor L -3 , like ManTech, disagrees with its [........] Technical/Management ratin g which was at least partly the result of being assigned [....................] L-3 a rg u e s that [......] of these were arbitrarily assigned: Turnover Rate (with the e le m e n t, Recruiting, Training, and Retention), Computer Network Defense, A p p lic a tio n /T o o l/S e rv ic e deployment, TEMPEST, DOD Architecture, NonD IA Organizational Structure, Operations & Maintenance (part of Operations S u p p o r t Services), Inventory Control and Software Licensing Experience, 22

S ys te m s Administration, Communications Security Support ("COMSEC") E x p e rie n c e , and Release Management. We will consider each in turn. a. Turnover Rate O n e of the elements of the Technical Management Factor was the C o n tra c to r' s SITE Organization/Management Team and Proposed M a n a g em e n t Structure. Within that element, offerors had to provide in f o rm a tio n regarding recruiting, training, and retention. Part of that s u b m is s io n was information regarding the "company's turnover rate for the b u s in e s s unit that will support SITE on an annual basis for the past (3) years." A R 517. Offerors also had to (1) "[d]escribe [their] company's management s tru c tu re , [and (2) detail] [h]ow they will ensure adequate experience regarding s u r g e capabilities . . . [and (3) provide] a detailed explanation of how the o f f e ro r will ensure that it does not experience a high personnel turnover rate . . . ." AR 516. The evaluators assigned L-3 [ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] L-3's principal argument is that [................] one of the successful o f f e ro rs , was given an acceptable rating on Technical Management, and given a "meets standard" with respect to SITE Organization/Management Team and P ro p o se d Management Structure, despite the fact that it did not submit tu rn o v e r rates and submitted retention rates instead. [...............] responded to this issue with the following information: [............................................................................................................. ......................................................... . . . . . ............................................................ ........... ..................................................................... . . . . . ................................................ ........................................................................... . . . . . .......................................... ................................................................................. . . . . . .................................... ....................................................................................... . . . . . .............................. ............................................................................................. . . . . . ........................ ........................................................................................................................] [ ...........] T h is information is plainly relevant to the inquiry, and the agency a c c e p ted it as satisfactory, but L-3 contends that it was error not to treat this 23

info rm atio n as non-compliant, because [...............] submitted its retention rates in lieu of turnover rates. The evaluators described [.................] proposal as f o l lo w s : [ ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ........................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................]

A R 12074. The Technical Evaluation Panel obviously inferred a turnover rate f ro m the retention rate. L-3 argues, relying on information not within the administrative record, th a t retention rates are not necessarily equivalent to turnover rates, and that [ ...............] may have been trying to "hide a high turnover rate." L-3's Memo in Supp. of Mot. at 26. There is no evidence that [.................] turnover rate w a s, in fact, any higher than that of L-3. [...............] plainly assumed, and the e v a lu a tio n panel accepted the assumption, that there is a close connection b e tw e e n retention rate and turnover rate. On the face of it, that is not an inh ere n tly unreasonable assumption. Equally important, the evaluators were c o n s i d e r in g a standard which encompassed much more than turnover rates. T h e y f o u n d t h a t [ ...................................................................................................................... ................] AR 12074. The evaluators were not arbitrary in being satisfied w ith [.................] retention plan as a whole. b. Computer Network Defense T h e technical evaluation panel assigned a [........] to L-3 on the technical e x p e rie n c e element based on its reading of what L-3 wrote in its proposal c o n c e rn in g its experience on the [.....] contract:

24

[ ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................. .................................................................................................] AR 3980. The DIA assigned the [........] because [ ..........................................................................] AR 12058. L-3 now argues that this is a misinterpretation of the reference. [ ..................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ..............................................................] That may have been L-3's intent in p r o v i d i n g the information, but it was not irrational for the DIA to draw the in f e re n c e it did. L-3 had the burden to provide a well-written proposal. See W e ste c h Int'l, Inc, 79 Fed. Cl. at 296. c. Application/Tool/Service Development O n e of the SOO functional areas asks the offerors to demonstrate that th e y can capably perform a task order to develop software to improve business a n d mission processes and improve application effectiveness." AR 1289. The D IA assigned L-3 [.........] under the technical experience element: [.................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .........................] AR 12056. The relevant paragraph from the SOO, 3.3.1, states "perform tasks to improve business and mission processes and improve application e f f e c tiv e n e ss ." AR 1289. In response, L-3 argues that it did provide the necessary description, re f errin g to language in its proposal descriptive of prior contracts. There is no re a so n to think that the evaluators "missed" this information. It was plainly in th e proposal. Apparently they concluded that it was less detailed than n e c e ss a ry, and that the information provided by [.....................................] to w h ich plaintiff points for its argument of unfair treatment, was sufficiently d e ta ile d . This is precisely the type of argument which the court is in a poor p o s iti o n to review. We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the e v a l u a to r s . 25

d . TEMPEST ("Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Emanation Standard") E x p e rie n c e L-3 argues that, as required within the technical experience element, it c o m m itte d to use of the TEMPEST standard. But the DIA assessed it [ ....... . . . . ] Furthermore, L-3 argues, [....] did not receive [.........] As to L-3's first contention, we note that it arguably merely reflected the Solicitation's w o rd s back to the agency. Compare "[w]hen applicable, in the performance of a n y maintenance, or installation of modifications or changes, the Contractor s h a ll ensure the existing [TEMPEST] profile is not degraded unless such a d e v ia tio n is approved in writing by the appropriate Government authority," A R 1 2 9 8 , w i t h [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................] [..........] The evaluators were reasonable in assig n in g L-3 [................................................................] We also note that in contrast to [....] having only a "bare" claim of T E M P E S T experience, [....] actually cites [...] years of experience providing re p a ir part support for . . . TEMPEST hardware," among other citations. AR 6 3 1 3 . Again, the evaluators were reasonable in not assigning [................] e. Technical Standards and DoD Architecture S O O 3.3.3, Systems Engineering Services, calls in subsection 3.3.8, for an understanding of DoD architecture and technical standards. The evaluators f o u n d t h a t L 3 [ .......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ......................................................... . . . . . ............................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] A R 12061. [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . .......................................................................................................] AR 12061. L -3 argues that the evaluators' findings are inconsistent: L-3 asks that if it [ .....................................] how did it demonstrate an understanding of a p p lic a b le standard. The evaluator's findings are not inconsistent. L-3 demonstrated an u n d e rsta n d in g of the standards that it mentioned in the proposal, but it [ .............................................................................................] Though L-3 cites m a n y areas of its Technical/Management volume to support its contention that it did discuss multiple standards, we are not positioned to decide if L-3's 26

c ita tio n s amount to more than [...............]. g u e s s in g the evaluators.

We have no basis for second

f. Non-DIA Organizational Structure U n d er the second element of the Technical/Management Factor, o f f e ro rs were to provide "evidence of a sound management structure that d em o n strates an adequate organizational structure." AR 1342. The evaluators critiqued L-3 for a proposal that [ ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...] AR 12053. They also wrote that [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................] [................] L-3 contends that it understood clearly that task orders could originate f ro m many sources other than DIA, and that this understanding was, at a m i n i m u m , implicit in its proposal. According to L-3, the [ ...................................................] with respect to those numerous [.......] p o ten ti a l clients should thus be seen, not as a failure take them into account, b u t as an indication that L-3 recognizes that they are, at this point, unknown. D ef en d a n t responds that the [......................] L-3 offered gave the evaluators c o n c e rn s about [..................] for oversight of such [.......] relationships. L-3 knew it would be managing multiple entities and working with multiple agencies. [ .......................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ...] 1 0 It was not arbitrary for the agency to treat this as a concern. g . Operations Support Services: Operations and Maintenance T h e evaluators assigned L-3 [..........] under the technical experience e l e m e n t f o r [ .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................

As defendant correctly points out, L-3's assertion that [...] was treated d if f e re n tly in this respect is unavailing. [.....] proposal mentioned the need to m a n a g e relationships with [.......] entities. Thus the evaluator's decision not to a s s ig n it [..........] in this respect was not irrational. 27

10

...........................................................................................] AR 12056. L-3 a rg u e s that the Solicitation does not require offerors to describe in detail how th e y performed prior contracts. Defendant responds that [........................] . . . for failing to describe `how' it did perform in its previous experience." L-3's M e m o in Supp. of Mot. at 20. We have dealt above with a similar argument made by ManTech. The re s u lt here is the same. It was within the agency's discretion to draw a d in s tin c tio n in offerors' proposals based on how much detail they provided a b o u t how their prior contracts satisfied the agency's need for experience in th e various components of the SOO. h . Inventory Control and Software Licensing Experience U n d er the technical experience element, the evaluators gave L-3 [..........] under the Operations and Maintenance of Hardware and Software o b j e c t i v e f o r [ ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................... ....................................................................................................................] AR 1 2 0 5 3 . This objective requires the offeror to show how its depth and breadth o f experience allow it to "provide the capability to support installed hardware an d software . . . . [R]esponsibilities include but are not limited to hardware an d software recapitalization, inventory control, software licensing, software a n d security management, hardware repair and remote servicing." AR 1291.

L -3 did not mention [...........................................] in any of the previous c o n tra c t experience it lists within its SOO 3.4.2 proposal area. L-3 doe