TDS, Inc.

B-261827.3 Feb 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency could properly make award on basis of initial proposals where solicitation advised offerors of this possibility and contracting officer's decision not to engage in discussions was reasonable. With result that protester's cost was higher than awardee's is denied. Where upward adjustment of protester's cost was unobjectionable in the two challenged elements. Evaluation of awardee's cost was unobjectionable in three of four challenged elements. Protest that technical proposals were misevaluated and protester's lower-rated proposal should have been rated equal to awardee's higher-rated proposal need not be considered when. Even assuming proposals should have been rated technically equal. View Decision Matter of: TDS, Inc. File: B-261827.3 Date: February 1, 1996 Agency could properly make award on basis of initial proposals where solicitation advised offerors of this possibility and contracting officer's decision not to engage in discussions was reasonable. Protest that agency misevaluated cost proposals by upwardly adjusting protester's proposed cost and conversely failing to upwardly adjust awardee's proposed cost in certain cost elements, with result that protester's cost was higher than awardee's is denied, where upward adjustment of protester's cost was unobjectionable in the two challenged elements; evaluation of awardee's cost was unobjectionable in three of four challenged elements; and agency's calculated increase of [deleted] in fourth challenged element would not displace awardee as low offeror. Protest that technical proposals were misevaluated and protester's lower-rated proposal should have been rated equal to awardee's higher-rated proposal need not be considered when, even assuming proposals should have been rated technically equal, solicitation provided that price would be controlling factor for substantially equal technical proposals, protester's evaluated cost was not low, and cost realism evaluation is unobjectionable. Attorneys DECISION TDS, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to MILCOM Systems Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00612-94-R-8405, for engineering support services for the Naval Command, Control & Ocean Surveillance Center, Charleston, South Carolina. TDS principally challenges the evaluation of cost and technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, as amended, contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite quantity contract for 1 base year with 4 option years, with additional options for level of effort increases for each year, to support cryptologic systems, counternarcotics systems, and special intelligence communications systems. The support to be furnished by the contractor includes overall program management, acquisition engineering, system integration, assembly and installation, software engineering, system documentation and configuration management. The RFP provided for award to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The solicitation listed the following technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: corporate experience, personnel qualifications, detailed technical approach, management plan, and facilities. Management plan and facilities were of equal importance. Although the solicitation stated that technical factors were moderately more important than cost, offerors were advised the importance of cost would increase "with the degree of equality of the proposals," such that "[w]here competing proposals [were] found to be substantially equal technically, price [would] be the controlling factor in award." The solicitation stated that cost proposals would be evaluated for realism and understanding of the scope of work. The solicitation established 28 labor categories, with stated minimum qualifications and estimated annual requirements for straight time, overtime and holiday time, for which offerors were to propose personnel. Offerors were required to propose hourly rates for each labor category and to break down the costs to include base labor rate, overhead rate, G&A expense, other costs, profit, and a total labor rate. The RFP cautioned that any proposal lacking realistic rates may result in a higher evaluated price. Finally, the solicitation informed offerors that the government intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions and that, therefore, each offeror should ensure that its initial offer contained the offeror's best terms from both a cost and technical standpoint. The agency received 12 offers by the closing date, including one from TDS and two from MILCOM (each one with a different team of subcontractors).