Diverse Technologies Corporation

Diverse Technologies Corporation BNUMBER: B-259546; B-259546.2 DATE: April 3, 1995 TITLE: Diverse Technologies Corporation ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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:Diverse Technologies Corporation File: B-259546; B-259546.2 Date:April 3, 1995 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester. Paralee White, Esq., Cohen & White, for Planned Systems International, Inc., an interested party. Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency did not perform an adequate cost realism and risk assessment with respect to awardee's proposal of uncompensated overtime is denied where, although the Defense Contract Audit Agency had no data on awardee and therefore was unable to verify its proposed uncompensated overtime, awardee furnished (1) information which showed that it had a total time accounting system that was capable of adequately tracking and reporting uncompensated overtime, and (2) historical data which the agency concluded demonstrated that uncompensated overtime [DELETED]. 2. Protest that agency was required to evaluate past performance and experience as a part of the technical evaluation is denied where solicitation did not state that an offeror's past performance and experience would be an evaluation factor. DECISION Diverse Technologies Corporation (DTC) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Planned Systems International, Inc. (PSI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-94-R-1920, for automatic data processing (ADP) support services for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. DTC challenges the agency's evaluation of PSI's price and technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated award of a 5-year--a base year with 4 option years--indefinite quantity, time-and-materials contract for ADP support services. The solicitation provided for award to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. The solicitation generally required the submission of a specific, detailed and complete technical proposal which clearly demonstrated that the offeror possessed a thorough knowledge and understanding of the solicitation requirements and had valid and practical solutions for technical problems. The solicitation specifically required the technical proposal to include resumes for all key personnel showing their compliance with specified education and experience requirements, a detailed management and staffing plan, a response to a sample task order, and a detailed commencement plan clearly demonstrating that the offeror could commence full contract performance within 1 week after award. The solicitation required offerors to furnish fixed unit prices for each of the six specified labor categories; it provided that an overall evaluated price would be calculated by adding: (1) the proposed rate for each labor category times the estimated number of required labor hours for that category (as specified in the solicitation), and (2) the other direct costs specified in the solicitation (increased by any general and administrative (G&A) and material handling costs specified by the offeror). The solicitation cautioned offerors that their proposed prices would be subject to a risk assessment. According to the RFP, the risk assessment would consider: "the degree to which there is a concern that the cost/price proposal is too low and not consistent with the technical proposal, and that the Offeror cannot provide quality services/personnel over the life of the contract at the prices proposed. Unrealistically low pricing which leads to such a concern may result in an unacceptable technical determination." In addition, the solicitation provided that: "[p]roposals which include unrealistically low labor rates, or which do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism, will be considered in a risk assessment and evaluated for award in accordance with that assessment." The Navy received 16 proposals, 3 of which--including DTC's and PSI's--were found to be technically acceptable as is. However, the agency determined that discussions were necessary because of unresolved cost issues concerning the uncompensated overtime included in PSI's low technically acceptable offer.