Matter of: Combat Systems Development Associates Joint Venture

B-259920.2 Jun 13, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that the agency conducted an unreasonable cost realism review of the awardee's proposed cuts to pay and benefits is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the proposed cost savings should be accepted because the awardee would be able to unilaterally impose such cost-savings measures on its employees. Challenge to agency's decision to accept the awardee's level of proposed uncompensated overtime is sustained where the record shows that despite the submission of a signed certification from every employee promising to voluntarily perform [DELETED] hours of uncompensated overtime each week. The challenge is also sustained because the record suggests that over the life of the contract the rate of employee turnover will be higher than estimated and that the newly hired employees will have even less incentive to provide uncompensated overtime than existing employees. View Decision Matter of: Combat Systems Development Associates Joint Venture File: B-259920.2 Date: June 13, 1995 REDACTED VERSION[*] Protester's contention that the agency conducted an unreasonable cost realism review of the awardee's proposed cuts to pay and benefits is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the proposed cost savings should be accepted because the awardee would be able to unilaterally impose such cost-savings measures on its employees, and where the record also shows that the agency adequately reflected its concerns about the effects of the pay cuts in its decision to downgrade the awardee's technical proposal in two separate areas. Challenge to agency's decision to accept the awardee's level of proposed uncompensated overtime is sustained where the record shows that despite the submission of a signed certification from every employee promising to voluntarily perform [DELETED] hours of uncompensated overtime each week, the agency did not consider the fact that the awardee intended to announce on the day of contract award significant reductions in pay rates and fringe benefits, calling into question the continued willingness of the existing employees to voluntarily work additional hours without compensation. The challenge is also sustained because the record suggests that over the life of the contract the rate of employee turnover will be higher than estimated and that the newly hired employees will have even less incentive to provide uncompensated overtime than existing employees. Protester's contention that the agency conducted an improper evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency review was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Argument that agency should have awarded to protester on the strength of its initial proposal, and should have excluded the awardee from the competitive range, is denied where the protester makes no showing that the agency acted unreasonably in including the awardee's proposal in the competitive range and holding negotiations. Attorneys DECISION We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued February 18, 1994, sought offers for a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort contract for the technical and engineering support services described above. The RFP estimated the level of effort for the base period, and for each of five option quantities. These estimates were as follows: Base Year 336,396 man-hours Option I 71,840 man-hours Option II 400,220 man-hours Option III 361,862 man-hours Option IV 357,054 man-hours Option V 323,013 man-hours The base year together with the five options reflect approximately 5 years of contract effort. Each option effort contains several contract line items (for example, option II consists of line items 0006-0009), and for each line item offerors were required to identify a proposed cost for the man-hours and an accompanying fixed fee. The RFP advised that the Navy was seeking proposals offering "the greatest technical ability at a reasonable price," and that the agency would select the technically acceptable offeror whose proposal offered the greatest value to the government. The evaluation was structured to consider technical issues and proposed costs. Under the technical factor, there were four subfactors: technical approach; management approach; experience; and facilities and resources. Generally, the technical approach subfactor was substantially more important than the other subfactors, which are listed in declining level of importance. [1] Under the first three subfactors were additional evaluation criteria, which need not be addressed here. Under the cost factor, the RFP advised that the Navy would consider realism, reasonableness and validity of the costs as proposed.