TRESP Associates, Inc.; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.

TRESP Associates, Inc.; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. BNUMBER: B-258322.5; B-258322.6 DATE: March 9, 1995 TITLE: TRESP Associates, Inc.; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. ********************************************************************** REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:TRESP Associates, Inc.; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. File: B-258322.5; B-258322.6 Date: March 9, 1995 Mary Beth Bosco, Esq., Timothy B. Mills, Esq., and Christy L. Gherlein, Esq., Patton Boggs, L.L.P., for TRESP Associates, Inc.; and Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Esq., Keck, Mahin & Cate, for Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., the protesters. Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., and Brian "D" Henretty, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for M.H. Chew & Associates, Inc., an interested party. Ronald E. Cone, Esq., and Richard S. Blakely, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Sylvia Schatz, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's proposal was unreasonable where agency identified weaknesses during discussions, protester addressed the weaknesses, and record indicates that many of the weaknesses were thereby eliminated, but proposal rating was not increased at all and record does not explain why increase was not warranted. 2. Cost/technical tradeoff was unreasonable where agency selected higher-cost proposal for award over lower-cost, similarly rated proposal based primarily on awardee's ability to respond more quickly on short notice, and the fact that awardee's initial proposal contained fewer weaknesses, purportedly indicating better understanding of requirement, and selection is not supported by the record. Finding that awardee had the ability to respond more quickly was based largely on source selection official's general recollection of the two firms' prior performance, which is not documented in either the contemporaneous or protest records; and record contains no explanation, and it is not apparent, why the types of weaknesses identified bear on understanding and, in any case, awardee's initial proposal was evaluated similarly to protester's. DECISION TRESP Associates, Inc. and Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. (ADC) protest the Department of Energy's (DOE) award of a contract to M.H. Chew & Associates, Inc. (CAI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP03-93SF19686, for technical and management services. TRESP primarily challenges the evaluation of its proposal as improper, and ADC primarily argues that the cost/technical tradeoff was improper. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued on May 14, 1993, as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a 5-year--2 base years plus 3 option years--cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support DOE programs in San Francisco, California, by furnishing technical and management services in several areas (e.g., technical studies, environment, safety, health and facility oversight, and safeguards and security technical services). The solicitation included an estimate of the agency's total requirement--including 68,100 (approximately 33 persons) direct productive man-hours for the first year and 79,100 man-hours (approximately 38 persons) for the second year--and an estimate of the total man-hours for each of the 27 required key and non-key labor categories. Offerors were required to propose certain key and non-key personnel with "L" or "Q" security clearances, and to show that they could obtain a DOE-approved classified facility. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to the RFP and was most advantageous to the government under three broad criteria: (1) technical, which was more important than (2) business/management, which was more important than (3) cost. There were four technical evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): (1) qualification of proposed personnel and personnel management, including subfactors for technical experience and offeror's approach to staffing the required work; (2) technical experience and past performance; (3) technical approach; and (4) task management. There were five business/management factors, all of equal importance: (1) business/management organization; (2) business/management experience on similar contracts; (3) cost management; (4) subcontracting and subcontract management; and (5) labor management relations. Seven proposals were received by the closing date. Three--TRESP's, CAI's, and ADC's--were included in the competitive range. Following site visits and oral and written discussions with the offerors, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO).