Vinnell Corporation

Vinnell Corporation BNUMBER: B-270793; B-270793.2 DATE: April 24, 1996 TITLE: Vinnell Corporation ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT 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:Vinnell Corporation File: B-270793; B-270793.2 Date:April 24, 1996 Marcus B. Slater, Esq., Jennifer J. Zeien, Esq., and Lisa G. Henneberry, Fort & Schlefer, for the protester. Thomas J. Madden, Esq., John J. Pavlick, Jr., Esq., Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., and Carla D. Craft., Esq., Venable, Baetjer, Howard and Civiletti, for Serv-Air, Inc., the intervenor. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., and Scott W. Singer, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's assessment of an offeror's proposal as entailing "moderate" proposal risk under a single evaluation factor does not mandate an upward adjustment of the offeror's proposed costs where the record reflects that the agency reasonably considered the aspect of the offeror's proposal which it assessed as entailing "moderate" risk and determined that no cost adjustment was warranted. 2. New and independent grounds of protest concerning specific aspects of the agency's cost realism analysis and proposal risk assessment are untimely where the protester knew, or should have known, of these protest bases upon its receipt of the agency report, but first raised these bases of protest in a supplemental protest and in its comments on the agency report filed more than 14 days after the protester's receipt of the agency report. DECISION Vinnell Corporation protests the award of a contract to Serv-Air, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04689-95-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for military housing maintenance and civil engineering services. We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. The RFP, issued on May 5, 1995, provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, with certain fixed-price elements, for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The successful contractor will provide military housing maintenance and repair services for 806 dwellings, and all labor (including professional engineering and architectural services), equipment, materials, and supplies to support other facilities, and the equipment installed on those facilities, at the Onizuka Air Station and certain other Air Force facilities in Sunnyvale, Pleasanton, and Mountain View, California. The RFP requested that each offeror submit a management/technical and a cost proposal, and provided detailed instructions for their preparation. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represented the best value to the government; that the evaluation areas to be considered were, in descending order of importance, management, technical, and cost; and that cost was significantly less important than management and technical. The solicitation listed the following management and technical evaluation criteria and factors: A. Management Criterion Factor 1: Key Personnel Factor 2: Program Management B. Technical Criterion Factor 1: Operations and Maintenance Factor 2: Environmental Factor 3: Military Family Housing Factor 4: Scenario Factor 5: Resource Management Factor 6: Engineering and Planning The solicitation informed offerors that factors 1 and 2 within the management criterion were equal in importance, and that, under the technical criterion, factors 1, 2, and 3 were equal in importance, with factors 4 and 5 being less important than factors 1, 2, or 3, and factor 6 being the least important. The RFP advised offerors that their proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk, which would involve the assessment of whether the proposed methods of accomplishing the requirements of the contract were, for example, risky, standard, or practical. Offerors were also informed that their proposals would be evaluated for performance risk, which would involve the assessment of the agency's confidence in each offeror's ability to successfully perform as proposed based upon, among other things, the offeror's work record and experience. The solicitation informed offerors that their cost proposals would be evaluated for realism, completeness, and reasonableness. The agency received five proposals, including Vinnell's (the incumbent contractor) and Serv-Air's, by the RFP's closing date of July 7, 1995.