Sociometrics, Incorporated

Sociometrics, Incorporated BNUMBER: B-261367.2; B-261367.3 DATE: November 1, 1995 TITLE: Sociometrics, Incorporated ********************************************************************** Matter of:Sociometrics, Incorporated File: B-261367.2; B-261367.3 Date: November 1, 1995 Paralee White, Esq., Laurel Hockey, Esq., and Joseph A. Zillo, Esq., Cohen & White, for the protester. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Bryant S. Banes, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., and Lawrence E. Ruggiero, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Science Applications International Corporation, an interested party. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In procurement for personal services, where awardee's proposal received high ratings for its recruitment plan, alleged changes in awardee's proposed level of effort for recruiting did not require agency to downgrade awardee's proposal, where changes merely represented the deletion of direct labor hours which duplicated indirect hours already included, and which remained in the proposal. 2. In contract for personal services in which level of effort was set at time of award, agency cost realism evaluation reasonably was focused primarily on comparison of proposed labor rates of offerors. 3. Where protester's proposal was rated technically excellent, agency advised the protester of some, but not all, weaknesses in its initial proposal, and protester's responses in its best and final offer resulted in a higher technical score, the agency met its responsibility to conduct meaningful discussions; agency was not required to identify all elements of the proposal which received less than full evaluation credit. 4. Agency record sufficiently documented cost realism analysis and source selection decision which found that proposals were technically equivalent, thus making low cost the determining factor for award. DECISION Sociometrics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Science Applications International Corporation, Environmental and Health Science Group (SAIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMD17-95-R-5007, issued by the Department of the Army, for personal medical services. Sociometrics alleges flaws in the agency's technical and cost evaluations and improprieties in its conduct of discussions.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for provision of early intervention services for exceptional family members in schools for dependents of service members overseas. The services will include special educators and health care professionals such as nurses, therapists, and psychologists. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 2-year base period with four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government. Technical factors were considered more important than cost, but the RFP advised that if offerors' technical competence were considered approximately the same, then cost could become paramount. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of cost and four technical factors listed in descending order of importance: recruitment plan; factors/interview questions used for selection of applicants; ability to maintain a staff of highly qualified professionals, performing satisfactorily; and ability to provide on-site administrative support. Seven offerors, including Sociometrics and SAIC, submitted proposals by the January 30, 1995, closing time. An initial evaluation eliminated all proposals from the competitive range except those of Sociometrics and SAIC. Both of these firms' proposals were considered technically excellent, with Sociometrics's scored at 88.76 (out of 100 possible) points and SAIC's scored at 89.38 points. In reviewing the proposals for cost realism, the evaluators compared the offerors' proposed costs with an independent government cost estimate (IGCE). From these evaluations, the agency developed technical and cost questions for use in discussions. Based on their responses to the discussion questions, each offeror's proposal score increased, Sociometrics's to 89.36 points and SAIC's to 89.62 points. Each offeror submitted a best and final offer (BAFO). The agency analyzed the BAFO cost proposals (including comparison with the IGCE), offerors' responses to cost questions, and audit information on indirect rates. The agency concluded that both offerors' cost proposals were realistic and reflected sound judgment and comprehension of the contract requirements. The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), determined that the proposals were technically equivalent. Accordingly, he used proposed cost as the basis for making his award decision.