Proteus Corporation; United International Engineering, Inc.

Proteus Corporation; United International Engineering, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270094; B-270094.2 DATE: February 8, 1996 TITLE: Proteus Corporation; United International Engineering, Inc. ********************************************************************** DECISION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Proteus Corporation; United International Engineering, Inc. File: B-270094; B-270094.2 Date:February 8, 1996 Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for Proteus Corporation; and Don A. Howard, Esq., Howard & Aldridge, for United International Engineering, Inc., the protesters. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Dana L. Fitzgibbons, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Arcata Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Douglas M. Whitehead, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably assigned moderate risk and green/acceptable ratings in evaluating the protester's proposal where the firm's proposed manning--which was significantly lower than other offerors'--represented a higher risk to successful contract performance; difference in offerors' staffing was a proper basis for distinguishing between protester's low cost and awardee's high cost proposal, which was evaluated as low risk and exceptional for technical merit. 2. Protest that agency improperly assigned an exceptional rating to the awardee's proposal for a technical subelement and only an acceptable rating to the protester's proposal, notwithstanding the protester's allegedly superior experience and approach to one of several systems being evaluated under the subelement, is denied where the agency's evaluation considered the offerors' overall approach to supporting all of the systems and found, in contrast to the protester's proposal, that the awardee's proposal contained a number of features exceeding the solicitation requirements. DECISION Proteus Corporation and United International Engineering, Inc. (UIE) protest the award of a contract to Arcata Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F26600-94-R0176, issued by the Department of the Air Force for comprehensive technical support services for the agency's weapons and tactics center range complex (WTCRC). Both protesters contend that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an irrational award decision. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost reimbursement contract for a base year with 4 option years to perform a wide array of services in support of the WTCRC, the Air Force's largest combat training range. The WTCRC is comprised of a number of facilities that contain various advanced systems for training pilots in all aspects of combat flight activities. The RFP provided that the agency would perform an integrated assessment to determine the proposal offering the best overall value to the government based on the following factors listed in descending order of importance: technical merit, current and past performance, and cost. The subelements of the technical merit factor listed in descending order of importance were: engineering and integration, operations and maintenance, and management and control functions. These subelements were to be evaluated using three "assessment criteria": understanding the requirement, soundness of approach and compliance with requirements, all equal in importance. Based on this assessment, an overall technical merit rating was to be assigned using a color/adjectival rating system (blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal or red/unacceptable). In addition to this rating, the RFP provided with regard to technical merit that proposals would receive a proposal risk rating of either high, moderate, or low based upon an assessment of the risks associated with each proposal. In the current and past performance area, the RFP provided that the agency would assign color/adjectival ratings based on information submitted by the offerors with their proposals, as well as information obtained from outside sources. In addition to the color/adjectival rating, the RFP provided that the agency would also assign a performance risk rating of high, medium, or low based on the offerors' performance record. Finally, cost was to be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The Air Force received five proposals, four of which it found to be within the competitive range. The Air Force engaged in discussions with these four offerors and solicited best and final offers (BAFO).