Vitro Corporation

B-261662.2 Dec 04, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's adjustment of protester's proposed labor rates to reflect risk was permitted by the terms of the solicitation. Demonstrates that adjustment did not have a significant impact on source selection decision. Agency conducted meaningful discussions regarding protester's labor rates where it advised protester that rates were unacceptably low. Prototype development and fabrication services to support the Army's Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Directorate (IEWD) and its customers. [1] The requirements being competed under this solicitation are a consolidation of activities currently being performed by QuesTech and Vitro. The Army describes the new contract as one which will require a broad range of technical disciplines and which is intended to push the state-of-the-art in intelligence and electronic warfare. View Decision Matter of: Vitro Corporation File: B-261662.2 Date: December 4, 1995 * Redacted Decision Agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposed potential [deleted] discount would not accrue to the benefit of the government where the discount took effect only for labor hours beyond specified levels and the agency reasonably determined that the threshold requirements would not be achieved. Agency's adjustment of protester's proposed labor rates to reflect risk was permitted by the terms of the solicitation. Agency reasonably considered protester's performance of predecessor contract in evaluating protester's proposed rates and agency's across-the- board adjustment of protester's proposed labor rates does not provide a basis to sustain the protest where record, as a whole, demonstrates that adjustment did not have a significant impact on source selection decision. Agency conducted meaningful discussions regarding protester's labor rates where it advised protester that rates were unacceptably low, and protester's response demonstrated clear understanding of the minimum expected rates. Attorneys DECISION Vitro Corporation protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to QuesTech, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB10- 93-R-1017, to provide support for the Army's Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW) activities. Vitro contends that the agency improperly evaluated its cost and technical proposals and failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 2, 1994, the Army issued the RFP seeking proposals to provide operational, program management, technical, engineering, integration, prototype development and fabrication services to support the Army's Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Directorate (IEWD) and its customers. [1] The requirements being competed under this solicitation are a consolidation of activities currently being performed by QuesTech and Vitro, individually, under separate contracts. The Army describes the new contract as one which will require a broad range of technical disciplines and which is intended to push the state-of-the-art in intelligence and electronic warfare, specifically ensuring the ability to jam enemy communications while avoiding detection. Consistent with the Army's description of the contract, the RFP emphasized technical and performance factors over cost factors. Specifically, the RFP stated that award would be based on three evaluation factors -- technical, performance risk, and cost -- and that technical factors would be significantly more important than performance risk, which would be significantly more important than cost. The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base period with four 1-year option periods; upon award of a contract, delivery orders will be issued and contract payments will be made on a time-and-materials basis. The RFP listed 83 labor categories for which offerors were required to propose rates. For each labor category, the RFP provided the agency's estimate of the number of hours likely to be required during each contract year. In the aggregate, the agency estimated it would require approximately 434,000 labor hours per year. For each labor category listed, the RFP also specified the civil service or "GS" grade level which the agency considered to represent the appropriate equivalent level of experience and expertise sought. On October 24, following several RFP amendments, proposals were submitted by four offerors, including Vitro and QuesTech. Technical proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation committee (TEC); cost proposals were evaluated by a cost evaluation committee (CEC); and offerors' performance risks were evaluated by a performance risk analysis group (PRAG). All four proposals were included in the competitive range, and discussions were subsequently conducted with each offeror. Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on March 13, 1995.