Strategic Analysis, Inc.

Strategic Analysis, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270075; B-270075.4 DATE: February 5, 1996 TITLE: Strategic Analysis, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Strategic Analysis, Inc. File: B-270075; B-270075.4 Date: February 5, 1996 James D. Bachman, Esq., and Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, for the protester. Elward L. Saul, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Record does not demonstrate that awardee intentionally misrepresented status of proposed key employee as employee rather than consultant, where there is no evidence that awardee was aware that the individual had been sent, and signed, a consultant agreement rather than an employment agreement, and the individual clearly agreed to employee status prior to award. 2. Protest that agency improperly held discussions (on limited matters) only with awardee will not be sustained where protester does not establish prejudice by showing that it would have altered its proposal to its competitive advantage had it been included in discussions. 3. Evaluation of proposals was reasonable where information provided by awardee in response to agency's questions demonstrated that awardee's proposal met the requirements of the solicitation. DECISION Strategic Analysis, Inc. (SAI) protests the award of a contract to Management Resources, Inc. (MRI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00014-95-R-0001, issued by the Office of Naval Research for personnel and facilities to provide management, administrative and technical assistance to the Joint Directors of Laboratories. SAI complains that the award was improper because (1) MRI misrepresented the status of one of its key personnel; (2) the agency improperly held discussions only with MRI; and (3) the evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on March 21, 1995, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The RFP listed three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: technical approach, qualifications, and cost. The qualifications factor was comprised of three equally weighted subcriteria: personnel, corporate experience, and corporate resources. The solicitation required offerors to provide the resumes of personnel proposed as key personnel for the job categories supervisory scientist/engineer, senior analyst, and mid-level analyst. If the proposed personnel were not currently employed by the offeror, the offeror was required to provide, with its proposal, a letter of intent which showed that the person would accept employment if the offeror was awarded the contract. The solicitation also required that the contractor have a conference room that could accommodate 50 people, and was a minimum size of 400 square feet. Seven offerors, including SAI and MRI, submitted proposals by the May 9 due date for initial offers. MRI's proposed cost was second low ($1,679,039) and SAI's was fifth low ($2,048,807). The technical evaluation team (TET) rated the technical proposals and determined that those submitted by SAI and MRI were technically superior to the others received. Both offerors were rated exceptional under the technical approach factor and fully qualified under each of the qualifications subfactors. However, the TET was not sure of the employment status of two of MRI's proposed key personnel, Mr. Siewert, the supervisory engineer, and Mr. Reidy, the mid-level analyst. Since MRI stated that it had a 50-person conference room, but did not indicate its size, the TET also was unclear as to whether the room was 400 square feet, as required. The agency sent letters to MRI to request MRI to clarify these points. In response, MRI stated that Mr. Siewert was a part-time employee and submitted an employment agreement signed by him; submitted a contingent employment agreement signed by Mr. Reidy; and provided dimensions showing that its conference room was larger than 400 square feet. The agency found these responses satisfactory. After reviewing the evaluation results, the contracting officer determined that SAI's technical proposal was superior to MRI's, but that it was not worth an additional $369,768 ($74,000 annually). As a result, she made award to MRI on an initial proposal basis. MISREPRESENTATION SAI argues that MRI misrepresented the employment status of its supervisory engineer, Mr. Siewert, in its initial proposal and in subsequent communications with the agency. SAI argues that this misrepresentation was improper in itself, and led the agency falsely to believe that MRI qualified as a small business (since proposing Mr.