United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.

File: B-407069; B-407069.2

Date: November 1, 2012

Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Larkin Reynolds, Esq., Edwin O. Childs, Esq., Heather 

Renwick, Esq., Leslie Harrelson, Esq., and Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Wilmer Cutler 

Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for the protester.

Jacob W. Scott, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Vedder 

Price P.C., for Serco, Inc., the intervenor.

Capt. Scott J. Hoffman and Marian Ciborski, Esq., Department of the Navy, Space 

and Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Contracting officer’s determination that there was no organizational conflict of 

interest that would preclude an award to the awardee was reasonable where the 

contracting officer reasonably investigated to see if an award would present an 

organizational conflict of interest and reasonably determined that it would not.

2. Agency conducted meaningful discussions with the protester and was not 

required to advise the protester during discussions of proposal weaknesses that 

were reasonably considered by the agency not to be significant.

DECISION

General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. of Taunton, Massachusetts, protests the award 

of a contract to Serco, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. N00039-11-R-0055, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval 

Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for the production of automated digital 

network system (ADNS) Increment (INC) III, to be used ashore and on certain Navy 

ships.1

 1 The agency explains that the “ADNS is an incremental acquisition program 

wherein new capabilities are added in follow-on increments.” Agency Report (AR) 

 The protester argues that the Navy failed to meaningfully review whether 

(continued...)

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.
Page 2 B-407069, B-407069.2 

Serco may have an unequal access to information organizational conflict of interest 

(OCI), and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with General 

Dynamics.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract, with certain 

cost-plus-fixed-fee items, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year option periods, 

for the production, testing, and delivery of ADNS INC III and associated hardware. 

RFP at 141-42, 148, 189; Statement of Work at 6; AR at 6-7. As explained by the 

agency, the “ADNS is made up of commercial network components, such as routers 

and cables, set into metal shelves for reinforcement, which are cut and bent from 

sheet metal to specifications” included in the RFP. Agency Supp. Report at 11 n.7. 

The solicitation includes, by way of technical data packages (TDP), “step-by-step 

instructions” for the production of the ADNS INC III, and provides “all the information 

that the contractor needs to make or buy the components that are then assembled 

into the end item,” that is, the ADNS INC III.

2

 Id.; see AR, Tab 53, Decl. of Former 

NIEF Project Manager/ADNS System Engineer, at 3. As such, the production effort 

here “is [the] equivalent of assembly.” Agency Supp. Report at 11 n.7; see AR, 

Tab 53, Decl. of Former NIEF Project Manager/ADNS System Engineer, at 3. 

The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the 

proposal determined to represent the best value to the government, with cost/price 

being less important than the combined weight of the following non-cost/price 

evaluation factors that are listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical 

approach; (2) corporate experience; (3) past performance; (4) small business 

utilization and commitment; and (5) brand name or equal.3

 

(...continued)

at 4. The agency states that the ADNS INC I and the ADNC INC II systems were 

developed and produced by SPAWAR’s Engineering Facility (NIEF), are currently 

operational, “and consist primarily of Government-off-the-Shelf (GOTS) 

configurations and software overlaid on Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) 

hardware.” Id. The ADNS INC III will replace the ADNS INC I and ADNS INC II. Id.

 RFP at 247. 

2 The agency explains that a “TDP contains all the system information to allow a 

contractor to build a production unit without any redesign or reconfiguration, 

including detailed product drawings and diagrams and a complete component parts 

list.” AR at 5 n.1.

3 The TDPs included in the solicitation listed the “brand name components” to be 

used in the production of the ADNS INC III, and specified that the “brand name or 

equal” section of the proposal preparation instructions and evaluation factor were 

(continued...)
Page 3 B-407069, B-407069.2 

The agency received proposals from three offerors, including General Dynamics

and Serco. AR, Tab 22, Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Report, at 6. 

The agency conducted discussions with the three offerors, and the RFP was 

subsequently updated with new TDPs. Id. at 5. Final revised proposals were 

requested, received, and evaluated as follows: 4

Serco General Dynamics

Technical Approach Outstanding Satisfactory

Corporate Experience Outstanding Good

Past Performance Good Outstanding

Small Business Utilization and Commitment Good Good

Brand Name or Equal Not Applicable Not Applicable

Evaluated Cost/Price $36,483,412 $33,187,744

AR, Tab 22, SSAC Report at 6, 16.

The agency determined that Serco’s proposal represented the best value to the 

government, and awarded a contract to that firm. After requesting and receiving a 

debriefing, General Dynamics filed this protest.

DISCUSSION

Unequal Access to Information OCI

The protester argues that the Navy failed to meaningfully review whether Serco has 

an unequal access to information OCI. The protester asserts that Serco’s OCI 

arises out of Serco’s current employment, as a production engineer, of a former 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) employee. The protester 

asserts that this former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer had 

supported NIEF while employed at SAIC, and had been exposed during the course 

of that support work to certain information proprietary to General 

Dynamics--including two site visits to General Dynamics--that provided Serco with 

an unfair advantage in this competition.

 

(...continued)

“not applicable” if “the Offeror propose[d] to produce and deliver ADNS using other 

than the brand name components listed in the ADNS TDP.” RFP at 201, 253. 

4 The solicitation informed offerors that proposals would be rated under the

technical approach, corporate experience, past performance, and small business 

utilization and commitment factors, as “outstanding,” “good,” “satisfactory,” 

“marginal,” or “unsatisfactory.” RFP at 251. The RFP provided here that proposals 

could also be rated as “neutral” under the past performance and small business 

utilization and commitment factors, and would receive ratings of “pass,” “fail,” or “not 

applicable” under the brand name or equal factor. Id. at 251-53.
Page 4 B-407069, B-407069.2 

The responsibility for determining whether an actual or apparent conflict of interest 

will arise, and to what extent the firm should be excluded from the competition, rests 

with the contracting agency. Aetna Gov’t Health Plans, Inc.; Foundation Health 

Fed. Servs., Inc., B-254397.15 et al., July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 129 at 12. The 

FAR requires that contracting officials avoid, neutralize, or mitigate potential 

significant conflicts of interest so as to prevent an unfair competitive advantage or 

the existence of conflicting roles that might impair a contractor’s objectivity. 

FAR §§ 9.504(a), 9.505. We review the reasonableness of a contracting officer’s 

OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to 

whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment 

for the agency’s, absent clear evidence that the agency’s conclusion is 

unreasonable. See TeleCommunication Sys. Inc., B-404496.3, Oct. 26, 2011, 2011 

CPD ¶ 229 at 3-4; PCCP Constructors, JV; Bechtel Infrastructure Corp., B-405036 

et al., Aug. 4, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 156 at 17. A protester must identify hard facts that 

indicate the existence or potential existence of a conflict; mere inference or 

suspicion of an actual or potential conflict is not enough. TeleCommunication Sys. 

Inc., supra, at 3; see Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377, 1387 

(Fed. Cir. 2011); PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The identification of conflicts of interest are fact-specific inquiries that require the 

exercise of considerable discretion. Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 

F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, we have no basis to object to the 

adequacy of the agency’s inquiry into whether Serco has an OCI, or the 

reasonableness of the agency’s conclusion that no unequal access to information 

OCI existed. 

According to the record, the Navy acquired the ADNS INC III “system design, 

development and demonstration efforts” from General Dynamics, through a task 

order that was competitively issued in August 2006 under the Department of the Air 

Force’s Network-Centric Solutions contract vehicle. AR at 4-5. In August 2007, 

another task order was issued to General Dynamics, on a sole-source basis, for the 

initial baseline production refinement of two variants (surface afloat and surface 

ashore) of ADNS INC III, followed by the issuance in November 2008 of another 

task order to General Dynamics for the low rate initial production (LRIP) of those 

ADNS INC III variants. Id. at 5. The record also reflects that in July 2009, the 

agency issued another task order on a sole-source basis to General Dynamics for 

“the system design” of “two submarine variants” of ADNS INC III. Id. at 5.

The agency notes that General Dynamics’ performance of the LRIP task order 

resulted in the delivery of initial ADNS INC III TDPs, updates to the TDPs, final 

drawings, and the delivery of “fully integrated end-items for installation.” Id. 

According to the Navy, SPAWAR’s NIEF “provided technical oversight to ensure the 

quality of contractor deliverables, and also conducted system performance 

verification, oversaw change management, performed acceptance and system 

integration testing, pre-installation testing and check-out and final (ship-specific) 
Page 5 B-407069, B-407069.2 

software configuration.” Id. The agency further reports that subsequent “to 

[General Dynamics’] delivery of the LRIP TDP in October 2009, while [General 

Dynamics] was producing and delivering the nine afloat surface and four surface 

shore systems,” the agency made “two sets of significant changes to the initial 

hardware design for afloat surface and shore systems.” Id. These later changes 

were made by SPAWAR’s NIEF without the involvement of General Dynamics. Id. 

at 6.

In evaluating Serco’s proposal submitted in response to the RFP here, members of 

the cognizant source selection evaluation board (SSEB) found that Serco’s proposal 

cited the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer “as significant to 

[Serco’s] ability to meet ADNS requirements.” AR, Tab 26, Memorandum of 

Evaluation of Potential OCI, at 1. The record reflects that “[b]ecause SSEB 

members had knowledge that as an SAIC employee [the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer] recently had supported the 

Government, specifically [SPAWAR’s NIEF], the SSEB was concerned that his 

current employment at Serco, and possible involvement in Serco’s proposal, might 

create or [had] created a personal and/or organizational conflict of interest.” Id. 

Specifically, the record reflects that the former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer had been employed by SAIC from 2007 to August 2010, and 

during that time, had supported SPAWAR’s NIEF as a “production engineer.”5

 Id. 

In order to determine whether Serco’s employment of the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer, and use of that individual in the 

drafting of its proposal in response to the RFP, created a significant conflict of 

interest, the record reflects that the contracting officer first advised the SSEB 

members “that more information was needed detailing [the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer’s] role in the NIEF over the past two 

years, specifically, a description of any tasking related to ADNS and overall 

involvement with the ADNS program.” AR, Tab 26, Memorandum of Evaluation of 

Potential OCI, at 1. The contracting officer requested that this information be 

accompanied by “a timeline of his support efforts.” Id. This timeline and a 

description of the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer’s

ADNS-related work was provided by a SSEB member to the contracting officer for 

his review. Id.

The record reflects that the contracting officer also met with certain members of the 

SSEB, who the contracting officer determined had “actual, relevant, and personal 

 5 The record further reflects that although the former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer remained employed by SAIC from August 2010 to February 

2011, he was reassigned by SAIC to support another entity. AR, Tab 26, 

Memorandum of Evaluation of Potential OCI, at 1.
Page 6 B-407069, B-407069.2 

knowledge of [the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer’s] 

responsibilities” while that individual was employed by SAIC, and were “most likely 

to provide accurate, expert advice.” Agency Supp. Report at 7. 

Specifically, the contracting officer met with the current ADNS Production Assistant 

Program Manager, who had served as the ADNS In-Service Engineering Agent 

Manager and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for the task order 

performed by General Dynamics for the “submarine design and development.” Id. 

The agency reports that as a result, this individual “had first-hand knowledge 

relevant to the OCI evaluation,” including his attendance at the same visits to 

General Dynamics’ site as the former SAIC employee/current Serco production 

engineer, the requirements of the task orders issued to General Dynamics

regarding the ADNS, and the current ADNS INC III RFP and TDPs. Id. at 8.

The contracting officer also spoke with the current NIEF Project Manager, who had 

served as the NIEF Deputy Project Manager and was the NIEF ADNS Project Lead. 

Id.; AR, Tab 52, Decl. of Former NIEF Deputy Project Manager/NIEF ADNS Project 

Lead, at 1. The record reflects that this individual was the Technical Authority “for 

individual NIEF task orders issued to SAIC,” and as such “was responsible for [the 

former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer’s] specific tasking in 

support of the NIEF” during the former SAIC employee/current Serco production 

engineer’s employment with SAIC. Agency Supp. Report at 8; AR, Tab 52, Decl. of 

Former NIEF Deputy Project Manager /NIEF ADNS Project Lead, at 1. The former 

NIEF Deputy Project Manager/NIEF ADNS Project Lead had “daily contact” with the 

former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer, and had held a weekly 

“NIEF ADNS status meeting” during which each person, including the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer, “briefed their specific tasking with 

respect to cost, schedule, performance and risk.” Agency Supp. Report at 8.

In conducting his review, the contracting officer also met with the current National 

Competency Lead for SPAWAR’s Systems Center Pacific, who had served as the 

NIEF Project Manager and NIEF ADNS Systems Engineer. Agency Supp. Report 

at 8; AR, Tab 53, Decl. of Former NIEF Project Manager/NIEF ADNS Systems 

Engineer. The agency represents that this individual was also responsible for the 

former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer’s “specific tasking in 

support of the NIEF,” had “daily contact” with former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer, and had attended a site visit to General Dynamics’ facility with 

the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer. Agency Supp. 

Report at 8-9; AR, Tab 53, Decl. of Former NIEF Project Manager/NIEF ADNS 

Systems Engineer, at 1, 3-4. The agency further reports here that the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer’s “activities with respect [to General 

Dynamics’] ADNS INC III TDP development and change process under the [initial 

baseline production refinement] and LRIP task orders were provided in direct 

support of” the former NIEF Project Manager/NIEF ADNS Systems Engineer. 

Agency Supp. Report at 8-9. 
Page 7 B-407069, B-407069.2 

With regard to the work being performed by General Dynamics, the contracting 

officer determined from his discussions with the government employees noted 

above--and from the written information received regarding the work of the agency, 

General Dynamics, and the former SAIC employee/current Serco production 

engineer--that from 2007 to late 2009, ADNS INC III was “in the end of its design 

phase.” AR, Tab 26, Memorandum of Evaluation of Potential OCI, at 2. The

contracting officer found, as mentioned previously, that during this time General 

Dynamics performed a task order relating to the ADNS INC III engineering 

development model, and a subsequent task order for the LRIP of the ADNS INC III. 

With regard to this 2007 to late 2009 time period, the contracting officer found that 

during the engineering development model phase of the ADNS INC III program, the 

former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer had been the “principal

point of contact” between the General Dynamics “design team and the NIEF 

engineering team.” Id. at 1-2. In this capacity, the former SAIC employee/current 

Serco production engineer had attended engineering meetings and General 

Dynamics site visits, “assisted the Government in the review of technical 

documentation created by [General Dynamics] in support of their LRIP design,” and 

had “led the efforts by the NIEF” to review the TDP delivered by General Dynamics

for a certain aspect of the ADNS INC III. Id. at 2. The contracting officer further 

found that the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer had 

“supported efforts by the Government to conduct Physical Configuration Audits of 

the LRIP system and review proposed design changes in the form of Engineering 

Change Proposals” submitted by General Dynamics. Id.

The contracting officer further determined that from late 2009 until August 2010, the 

design phase of ADNS INC III had been completed and General Dynamics had 

begun the LRIP of ADNC INC III. Id. at 3. The contracting officer found that, during 

this time, NIEF “received all” ADNS INC III LRIP systems for pre-installation, 

checkout and environmental quality testing. Id. at 3-4. Here, the contracting officer 

found that the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer had 

“continued support as the NIEF ADNS production engineer.” Id. at 3. In performing 

these duties, the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer 

“assisted NIEF” by helping to resolve certain ADNS INC III hardware issues, and 

had “worked with other SAIC personnel to coordinate and oversee environmental 

qualification testing” of certain aspects of the LRIP ADNS INC III. Id. at 4. The 

contracting officer also found that the former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer had assisted with converting the TDPs provided by General 

Dynamics into SPAWAR’s format, and had processed “various program engineering 

change requests.” Id.

The record reflects that the contracting officer analyzed the information received 

regarding the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer, in order to 

determine whether that individual’s participation in the preparation of Serco’s 
Page 8 B-407069, B-407069.2 

proposal here resulted in an OCI. In this regard, the contracting officer concluded 

that the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer had not had 

access to information proprietary to General Dynamics that provided Serco with a 

competitive advantage. The contracting officer explains that the information to 

which the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer was exposed 

was either information that was subsequently released to all offerors in the TDPs 

included with the RFP as attachments, or was information, such as engineering and 

production information, which the contracting officer determined was “too remote in 

both substance and time from the actual full rate production requirements to be of 

competitive advantage.” AR at 52; see AR, Tab 26, Memorandum of Evaluation of 

Potential OCI, at 2-3; Tab 27, Supp. Memorandum of Evaluation of Potential OCI, 

at 4-6. 

Specifically, with regard to the TDPs, the contracting officer notes that much of 

General Dynamics’ effort under the task orders related to and resulted in the 

development of the TDPs included with the RFP here as attachments. AR, Tab 27, 

Supp. Memorandum of Evaluation of Potential OCI, at 4. The contracting officer 

explains that under the RFP here the TDPs are provided in final form, and the 

successful contractor “does not control the TDPs and is not responsible for updating 

them.” Id. at 4-5. The contracting officer thus concludes that any knowledge gained 

by the former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer regarding either 

the agency’s or General Dynamics’ TDP process as the result of his NIEF support 

work while at SAIC “is irrelevant to the requirements” of this RFP. Id. at 5. The 

contracting officer further concludes that the former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer’s “access to TDPs or the information contained in the TDPs 

would not provide a competitive advantage, as these documents were provided to 

the offerors in final form as attachments to the . . . RFP.” Id. at 4. 

The contracting officer notes, with regard to the former SAIC employee/current 

Serco production engineer’s participation in visits to General Dynamics’ site as the 

result of his NIEF support work while at SAIC, that the first visit in October 2008 

took place before General Dynamics had produced an LRIP ADNS INC III, and that 

the site visit related to “system engineering and integration testing, which have no 

relevance to the current contract requirements.” Id. at 5. The contracting officer 

also concludes based upon “the considerable government support in engineering 

and baseline refinement that was needed before [General Dynamics] could produce 

[a] compliant system,” that any production “processes discussed at that time” would 

be unlike the full production processes required by the RFP here. Id.

With regard to the second visit of the former SAIC employee/current Serco 

production engineer to General Dynamics’ site, the contracting officer notes that 

“the NIEF team” spent the majority of its time “providing troubleshooting information” 

to General Dynamics, and “helping them learn how to fix the various problems with 

the system design and production.” Id. The contracting officer concludes that the 

former SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer’s participation in this site 
Page 9 B-407069, B-407069.2 

visit could not have provided a competitive advantage with regard to the RFP here. 

In this regard, the contracting officer explains that “[p]rocesses for troubleshooting 

and fixing design issues during testing were not evaluated” under the RFP here, 

and, given “the immaturity of the accessed information,” and fact that the site visit 

occurred in March 2009, any information obtained by the former SAIC 

employee/current Serco production engineer was “too remote in both substance 

and time from the actual full rate production requirements to be of any competitive 

advantage.” Id. at 6.

As indicated above, the record reflects that the agency performed a comprehensive 

OCI analysis, and gave meaningful consideration to whether an OCI exists. 

Although General Dynamics is correct that the agency did not contact the former 

SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer or any General Dynamics

representatives in the performance of the OCI analysis, we cannot find, given the 

extent of the information considered by the agency in performing its analysis and 

the apparent first-hand and unbiased knowledge of the individuals contacted as 

reflected above, that the agency’s analysis was inadequate as argued by the 

protester. Additionally, the record demonstrates that the agency meaningfully 

considered all of the information gathered and circumstances attendant to the 

procurement here in reaching the conclusion that Serco’s employment of the former 

SAIC employee/current Serco production engineer, and his participation in the 

drafting of Serco’s proposal, did not create an OCI or provide Serco with an unfair 

competitive advantage. In this regard, and as explained above, the contracting 

officer determined that the information to which the former SAIC employee/current 

production engineer was exposed was either provided to offerors through the RFP’s 

TDPs, or was “too remote in both substance and time” to the full rate production 

requirement here to have resulted in a competitive advantage. AR at 2; See

Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., LLC, B-404655.4 et al., Oct. 11, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 236 

at 6 (individual’s access to information that was “out-of-date and largely within the 

public domain” would not create an OCI). Although the protester clearly disagrees 

with the agency’s determination, and makes a number of arguments in support of its 

position, we cannot find, based upon our review of the record here, that the agency

unreasonably concluded that an OCI did not exist. 

Discussions

The protester also argues that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions or 

that the discussions were misleading. Specifically, General Dynamics complains 

that the agency failed to notify it during discussions that it had identified three “minor 
Page 10 B-407069, B-407069.2 

weaknesses” under the sample production task subfactor to the technical approach 

evaluation factor.

6

 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to conduct discussions 

with offerors in the competitive range concerning, “at a minimum . . . deficiencies, 

significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the 

offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.” FAR § 15.306(d)(3). When an 

agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions must be 

“meaningful,” that is, sufficiently detailed so as to lead an offeror into the areas of its 

proposal requiring amplification or revision in a manner to materially enhance the 

offeror’s potential for receiving the award. FAR § 15.306(d); TriCenturion, Inc.; 

Safeguard Servs., LLC, B-406032 et al., Jan. 25, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 52 at 21. As 

our Office has consistently held, agencies are not required to afford offerors 

all-encompassing discussions or to discuss every aspect of a proposal that receives 

less than the maximum score, and are not required to advise an offeror of a minor 

weakness that is not considered significant, even where the weakness 

subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing between two closely 

ranked proposals. Vizada, Inc., B-405251 et al., Oct. 5, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 235 

at 11. In determining whether a concern identified by an agency was a weakness, 

significant weakness, or deficiency, our Office does not rely solely on the label or 

term used by the agency, but instead looks also to the context of the evaluation. 

TriCenturion, Inc.; Safeguard Servs., LLC, supra.

The record demonstrates that the agency raised a number of issues with General 

Dynamics during discussions regarding the sample production task subfactor under 

the technical approach factor. See AR, Tab 5, Discussions Letter to General 

Dynamics, at 1-6. The agency explains that it chose to raise during discussions 

those areas of the offerors’ proposals where the weaknesses identified “related to 

material aspects of the ADNS INC III requirements.” AR at 37. With regard to the 

evaluation of General Dynamics’ proposal under the sample production task 

subfactor, the record reflects that the agency advised General Dynamics of three 

“minor weakness[es].” AR, Tab 5, Discussions Letter to General Dynamics, at 1-6. 

Two of these three weaknesses concerned the first article testing element of the 

sample production task subfactor, and the third weakness concerned General 

Dynamics’ strategy for performing the full rate production of the ADNS INC III. AR 

at 37; AR, Tab 5, Discussions Letter to General Dynamics, at 1. 

The record also shows that the agency did not raise during discussions a total of 

four minor weaknesses that it identified in General Dynamics’ proposal, and that 

three of them concerned General Dynamics’ proposal as evaluated under the 

 6 The technical approach factor was comprised of the following three subfactors, 

listed in descending order of importance: sample production task; production 

capability and processes; and facility capacity. RFP at 248. 
Page 11 B-407069, B-407069.2 

sample production task subfactor under the technical approach factor. AR at 37; 

AR, Tab 5, Discussions Letter to General Dynamics, at 1. The agency explains that 

it chose not to raise these weaknesses because of its view that they “were not 

directly related to the RFP or [statement of work] that would have a substantive 

impact on the overall evaluation.” AR at 37. The agency maintains in this regard 

that even if General Dynamics had been afforded an opportunity to address the 

unidentified weaknesses in its approach as evaluated under the sample production 

task subfactor, the relative merits of General Dynamics’ proposal would not have 

changed. 

Based on our review and given the agency’s explanation, we cannot find 

unreasonable the agency’s judgment that none of the evaluated weaknesses in 

General Dynamics’ proposal that the agency chose not identify during discussions 

can be reasonably be characterized as “significant.” The fact that they were 

referenced in source selection document does not in itself render them significant. 

See Vizada, Inc., supra. Given the relatively minor nature of the three evaluated 

weaknesses in General Dynamics’ proposal that were not identified during 

discussions, we cannot find the agency’s conduct of discussions here to be 

unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel