TRW, Inc.

B-260788.2 Aug 02, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-cost offerors was unreasonable where protester's and awardees' proposals were similarly technically rated except in one evaluation area. It is not clear from the evaluation record why the identified strengths of protester's proposal in this one area were rated below awardees'. Source selection official does not explain (either contemporaneously or in protest record) why the advantages of the awardees' proposals were superior to those of the protester's proposal. Will & Emery. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The areas were listed in descending order of importance except the technical and management areas were equal in importance. View Decision Matter of: TRW, Inc. File: B-260788.2 Date: August 2, 1995 * REDACTED DECISION Cost/technical tradeoff decision resulting in awards to higher technically rated, higher-cost offerors was unreasonable where protester's and awardees' proposals were similarly technically rated except in one evaluation area; it is not clear from the evaluation record why the identified strengths of protester's proposal in this one area were rated below awardees'; and source selection official does not explain (either contemporaneously or in protest record) why the advantages of the awardees' proposals were superior to those of the protester's proposal, or why they warranted foregoing protester's $4 million (approximately 15 percent) lower cost. Attorneys 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. DECISION TRW Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Air Force to award contracts for support services for the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) [1] to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and BDM Federal, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F29601-93-R-0036. TRW asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal and failed to perform a proper best value analysis. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on December 30, 1993, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods. The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated under four areas (factors): technical, management, organizational conflict of interest (OCI), and cost. The areas were listed in descending order of importance except the technical and management areas were equal in importance. The solicitation also listed items (subfactors) that would be evaluated under each area, each of which would be assigned an adjectival rating, [2] a proposal risk rating, and a performance risk rating; the item ratings would then be used to arrive at overall ratings for the areas. Awards were to be made to the two offerors whose proposals were most advantageous to the government, based on an integrated assessment of all evaluation areas. Six offerors responded to the solicitation. Following evaluation by the source selection evaluation team (SSET), all proposals were included in the competitive range. Subsequently, oral discussions were held and two best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, submitted and evaluated. The BAFOs of the awardees and the protester were rated as follows: TECHNICAL TRW BDM SAIC Statement of Work Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Sample JCOMSS Subtask Acceptable Exceptional Exceptional Personal Qualifications Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Performance Risk Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Proposal Risk Low Low Low MANAGEMENT Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Program Management Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Sample Program Management Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Subtask Transition Plan Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Performance Risk Low Low Low Proposal Risk Low Low Low ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Availability Avoidance/Mitigation Plan Performance Risk Low Low Low Proposal Risk Low Low/Moderate Low PROPOSED COST $22,972,452 $26,999,421 $26,972,201 The SSET presented the evaluation results to the source selection authority (SSA), who determined that the proposals submitted by BDM and SAIC represented the best value to the government. [3] Awards were made to those firms and this protest followed. TRW argues that the award was not based on a proper integrated assessment of all evaluation areas. Specifically, TRW asserts that in reaching the award decision, the SSA improperly failed to consider that BDM received a worse proposal risk rating than TRW in the OCI area [4] and did not consider that TRW's proposed cost was $4 million lower than SAIC's or BDM's.