System Resources Corporation

System Resources Corporation BNUMBER: B-270241; B-270241.2; B-270241.3 DATE: February 12, 1996 TITLE: System Resources Corporation ********************************************************************** Matter of:System Resources Corporation File: B-270241; B-270241.2; B-270241.3 Date: February 12, 1996 John S. Pachter, Esq., Christina M. Pirrello, Esq., and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for the protester. Craig D. Haughtelin, Esq., Department of Navy, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation required offerors to submit resumes showing that key personnel met specified educational and experience qualifications, agency reasonably determined that resumes lacking sufficient information to establish qualifications were unsatisfactory. Protester cannot cure insufficiencies by furnishing clarifying or missing information as part of its protest submissions. 2. Where award is made on the basis of initial proposals and, in accordance with solicitation provisions, protester's unsatisfactory key personnel render its proposal unacceptable, the protester is not an interested party to challenge other aspects of the agency's evaluation. DECISION Systems Resources Corporation (SRC) protests the award of a contract to EER Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68936-95-R-0001, a small disadvantaged business set-aside issued by the Department of the Navy for weapons and software system support for certain aircraft systems. SRC protests the agency's evaluation of its management/technical and cost proposals, the evaluation of EER's proposal as "exceptional," and the cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division is the weapons system support activity (WSSA) and system software support activity for all aircraft assigned to it. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, level-of-effort contract to provide system engineering services, test/simulation facility support, software design and development, WSSA program office technical support, and flight test support for each of the assigned operational aircraft. These services include resolving software problems, implementing enhancements and new capabilities, writing and testing software for on-board embedded computer systems, and test and integration of new or revised weapons and avionics systems. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of cost and five management/technical factors: (1) management plans; (2) technical knowledge and technical management processes; (3) past performance risk assessment; (4) resumes of key personnel; and (5) technical processes. Cost was to be evaluated on the basis of realism, reflection of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistency with the management/technical proposal. Overall, management/technical factors were of greater importance than cost. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The RFP provided that the Navy intended to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions. The RFP advised offerors to submit initial proposals containing their best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Three offerors, including SRC and EER, submitted proposals. A source evaluation board performed a technical and cost realism evaluation of all three proposals. Proposals were rated as exceptional, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory, and of low, moderate, and high risk. The results were as follows: Factors SRC EER Offeror 3 Factor 1 (Risk)Marginal (Moderate)Exceptional (Low)Satisfactory (Moderate) Factor 2 (Risk)Marginal (High)Exceptional (Low)Marginal (High) Factor 3 Moderate Low Moderate Factor 4 (Risk)Unsatisfactory (High)Exceptional (Low)Unsatisfactory (High) Factor 5 (Risk)Satisfactory (Moderate)Exceptional (Low)Satisfactory (Moderate) Evaluated Cost $88 million $105 million [1]$104 million The source selection advisory council presented the evaluation findings to the source selection authority (SSA) and recommended award to EER as offering the best value. The council's findings included the determination that only EER's proposal was acceptable as submitted. The council also found that even if the management plans and key personnel deficiencies of the other offerors were corrected, their lack of technical knowledge and related contract experience represented uncorrectable weaknesses.