File No B-421749.4,B-421749.6,B-421749.8<\/p>\n
Digest<\/p>\n
Discussion<\/p>\n
ManTech challenges various aspects of the conduct of the procurement. First, the protester challenges the agency\u2019s evaluation of ManTech\u2019s proposal under the experience factor. Next, ManTech argues that TSA\u2019s evaluation of the offerors\u2019 proposals under the staffing elements factor was unequal and otherwise unreasonable. The protester also contends that TSA failed to reasonably consider whether Maximus had a disqualifying impaired objectivity OCI. As discussed below, we find no basis to sustain any of ManTech\u2019s protest allegations.[11]\n
At the outset, we note that the task order competition was conducted pursuant to FAR part 16. Under these provisions, the evaluation of proposals, including the determination of the relative merits of proposals, is primarily a matter within the contracting agency\u2019s discretion, because the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. CSRA LLC, B-417635 et al., Sept. 11, 2019, 2019 CPD \u00b6 341 at 9. In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of an offeror\u2019s proposal, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals; rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency\u2019s judgment was<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Maximus Federal Services, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T020-21-R-7554N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for services to support the operations and maintenance of various agency systems. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals, and the best-value tradeoff decision.<\/p>\n
We deny the protest.<\/p>\n