Creative Management Technology, Inc.

B-266299 Feb 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion questions reasonably led protester into area of its technical proposal that was deficient. Agency's determination that the protester's lower-priced proposal did not represent the best value to the government in a procurement for technical engineering and spacelift services is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as posing a moderate performance risk due to the protester's reliance on subcontractor personnel and corporate resources. Which was reasonably evaluated as posing a low performance risk due to the awardee's capability to rely on in-house personnel and internal corporate resources. View Decision Matter of: Creative Management Technology, Inc. File: B-266299 Date: February 9, 1996 Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion questions reasonably led protester into area of its technical proposal that was deficient. Agency's determination that the protester's lower-priced proposal did not represent the best value to the government in a procurement for technical engineering and spacelift services is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as posing a moderate performance risk due to the protester's reliance on subcontractor personnel and corporate resources, and reasonably concluded that compared to the awardee's proposal, which was reasonably evaluated as posing a low performance risk due to the awardee's capability to rely on in-house personnel and internal corporate resources, was worth the price premium. Protest that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage because it proposed the services of government employee as a project leader is denied where: (1) government employee advised the agency of his employment discussions and subsequent offer from the awardee; (2) the government employee did not participate in the procurement; (3) there is no evidence that the government employee influenced the technical evaluators or that the employee had access to source selection information, or otherwise conferred an unfair competitive advantage on the awardee; and (4) there is no evidence that the government employee participated in the preparation of the awardee's proposal. Attorneys DECISION Creative Management Technology, Inc. (CMT) protests the award of a contract to AJT and Associates under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08650-95-R-A078, issued by the Department of the Air Force for technical engineering and spacelift services (TESS) to support the agency's 45th Space Wing Eastern Launch Range Space Program. CMT contends that the Air Force failed to apprise the firm of informational deficiencies in its proposal, thereby depriving the protester of the opportunity to improve its moderate risk proposal rating. CMT contends that it should have received the award since the agency's risk concerns were unreasonable, and it offered a lower price than the awardee. CMT also argues that the technical evaluation and subsequent award to AJT were tainted by a conflict of interest. We deny the protest. The TESS services are critical engineering support necessary to ensure scheduled space program launches and missions including Titan IV, Atlas II, Delta II and III, Trident D-5, and various commercial satellite programs. The procured services include phase-in tasks; project management; engineering design; emergency on-call engineering support; inspection services; and data compilation/recordkeeping. The RFP was issued on May 15, 1995 and contemplated the award of a 1-year contract with 4 option years based on an integrated assessment of technical and price factors, with price less important than technical merit. The RFP required each offeror to submit a technical/management proposal, which was to be evaluated under seven criteria of equal importance. The RFP further provided that risk analysis of each proposal would be performed and considered as part of the overall evaluation. By the June 21 closing date, four offers were received, including offers from CMT and AJT. During the next 2 months, numerous "Clarification Requests/Deficiency Reports" (CR/DR) were issued to each of the four offerors. Of significance to this protest, 4 of the 36 CRs/DRs provided by the Air Force to CMT stated, "[CMT's proposal] states CMT will use their fixed-price engineering personnel for on-call engineering services. Mixing work requirements may create project scheduling problems during actual execution of the contract. Example, fixed-price design might have longer completion date or completion date might be delayed. Please revalidate your approach." "Various references in multiple sections refer to corporate resources as a means of accomplishing work.