Ralph G. Moore & Associates

Ralph G. Moore & Associates BNUMBER: B-270686; B-270686.2 DATE: February 28, 1996 TITLE: Ralph G. Moore & Associates ********************************************************************** Matter of:Ralph G. Moore & Associates File: B-270686; B-270686.2 Date: February 28, 1996 Janice Davis, Esq., and Philip H.M. Beauregard, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. David R. Smith, Esq., for Information Support SVRS, an intervenor. James P. Fuerstenberg, Esq., and Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee engaged in "bait and switch" tactics with regard to one of its proposed key personnel is denied where the record does not support this allegation. 2. Agency reasonably evaluated the past performance of the awardee--a recently formed joint venture--in accordance with the solicitation's requirements where the agency considered the recent experience of one of the joint venture partners. 3. Agency did not conduct unequal discussions where it did not advise the protester that its costs were considered too high because the costs were not unreasonable, and where it conducted appropriate cost discussions with the low cost awardee. DECISION Ralph G. Moore & Associates (RGMA) protests the award of a contract to Information Support SVRS (ISS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP02-95CH10619, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for federal information processing support services for its Chicago Operations Office. RGMA challenges various aspects of DOE's evaluation of the awardee's technical proposal and its conduct of discussions. We deny the protests. The solicitation was issued April 21, 1995, as a set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program. DOE anticipated awarding a cost reimbursement, level-of-effort contract to be performed over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. Award would be made to the offeror whose offer was most advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered. This determination would be based upon an evaluation of the offerors' technical, business management, and cost proposals. The technical proposals, which were significantly more important than the business management and cost proposals, would be point-scored under three evaluation factors: key personnel, past performance, and management plan. The business management proposals, not at issue here, would be adjectivally rated. The cost proposals would be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and to establish the probable cost to the government. Four proposals were submitted by the June 5 closing date, including RGMA's and ISS'. RGMA is the incumbent contractor providing these services, and ISS is a newly-formed joint venture consisting of Columbia Services Group, Inc. and Eztech Manufacturing, Inc. After all offerors submitted revised proposals in response to a material amendment, the agency evaluated proposals and established a competitive range of three proposals, including RGMA's and ISS'. Discussions were conducted, and revised cost proposals were submitted by all offerors by October 18. Each firm submitted its best and final offer (BAFO) and a signed draft contract by November 6. ISS' technical proposal received 986 points and RGMA's proposal 952 points; both firms received outstanding ratings for their business management proposals. ISS' probable cost for the total contract period was $8,634,848, and RGMA's probable cost was $9,962,355.[1] The source selection official concluded that both firms' proposals were essentially technically equal, and that the significant difference between their probable costs made ISS' proposal the best value to the government. Offerors were notified of this decision by letter dated November 27, and these protests followed.[2] RGMA first argues that ISS engaged in improper "bait and switch" tactics with regard to its proposed senior programmer/analyst. The protester proffers the fact that an ISS employment advertisement for this position was running on the Internet after award of the contract as evidence that the firm did not intend to actually utilize the individual it proposed. Offeror "bait and switch" practices, whereby an offeror's proposal is favorably evaluated on the basis of personnel that it does not expect to use during contract performance, have an adverse effect on the integrity of the competitive procurement system and provide a basis for rejection of that offeror's proposal. Free State Reporting, Inc., B-259650, Apr. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 199.