Potomac Research International, Inc.

Potomac Research International, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270697; B-270697.2 DATE: April 9, 1996 TITLE: Potomac Research International, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Potomac Research International, Inc. File: B-270697; B-270697.2 Date:April 9, 1996 Kenneth S. Kramer, Esq., James M. Weitzel, Esq., and James S. Kennell, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. James J. Durney, for COBRO Corporation, an intervenor Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., David H. Scott, Esq., and William R. Hinchman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where the agency properly determined that the awardee's initial proposal was technically acceptable and that its proposed cost was reasonable, and where the agency reserved the right to award on the basis of initial proposals without discussions, the award to the lower proposed cost, technically equal offeror was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Potomac Research International, Inc. (PRI) protests the award of a contract to COBRO Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD05-95-R-0018, issued by the Department of the Army for data collection services for the U.S. Army Aviation Technical Test Center, Ft. Rucker, Alabama. The protester challenges the technical acceptability of COBRO's proposal, the reasonableness of COBRO's proposed cost, and the agency's decision to award on the basis of initial proposals without discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a time-and-materials, cost-reimbursement contract for a base period with 4 option years. For each period of performance, the RFP schedule listed estimated hours for specified personnel positions. Offerors were required to insert on the schedule unit and extended hourly rates for each position (some of which were subject to applicable wage determinations). The RFP described "required" and "desired" education, experience, and skills qualifications for each position. The RFP required offerors to "provide resumes, including training certificates and letters of intent, for all personnel, proposed subcontractors, and consultants to be used in this effort." The RFP also included a personnel replacement clause. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the firm whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government, cost and technical factors considered. Proposals would be evaluated in three areas--technical (with personnel qualifications considered significantly more important than understanding of the problem/objective), management (with an offeror's management plan considered significantly more important than its corporate background and past performance/ corporate experience, which were considered equal in importance), and cost (whether an offeror's total proposed cost was consistent with its proposed approach). The RFP stated that the award could be made on the basis of initial proposals without discussions; accordingly, offerors were advised that an initial proposal should contain the offeror's most favorable terms from a technical and cost standpoint. The RFP stated that the technical and management areas were slightly more important than cost, but between technically equal proposals cost would become more significant in awarding the contract. Three firms, including PRI and COBRO, submitted initial proposals. The technical and management areas were evaluated by the agency's proposal evaluation board (PEB). In evaluating these areas, the PEB assigned points to each of the technical and management evaluation subfactors. An offeror's raw scores for the technical and management areas were subsequently weighted and added together to arrive at the offeror's total weighted technical and management score. In evaluating the reasonableness of an offeror's proposed cost, the contracting officer considered each offeror's proposal, the technical evaluations, the independent government estimate, applicable wage determinations, and the rate verifications requested from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). The proposals of PRI and COBRO received the following weighted technical and management scores: PRI COBRO Technical 54.7 53.9 Management 38.0 40.0 Total 92.7 93.9 COBRO's proposed cost was approximately 9 percent lower than PRI's proposed cost. Since there was only an approximate 1-point difference in the total weighted technical and management scores for PRI and COBRO, the contracting officer determined that the proposals of PRI and COBRO were technically equal.