Advanced Communication Systems, Inc.

Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271040; B-271040.2 DATE: June 10, 1996 TITLE: Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. File: B-271040; B-271040.2 Date:June 10, 1996 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., and Paul N. Wengert, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester. J. Andrew Jackson, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, for Technical and Management Services Company, an intervenor. Anthony E. Marrone, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. An awardee did not materially misrepresent the availability of its proposed 12 personnel, of whom 11 were current awardee employees, where the awardee confirmed their availability prior to award. 2. The contracting agency reasonably found the awardee's proposed personnel to be acceptable, where the awardee's and protester's personnel were similarly found to be in substantial compliance with the solicitation requirements, such that the agency's needs were met and no offeror was prejudiced. 3. The contracting agency's consideration of offerors' prices, resumes, and responsibility in determining to make award to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. 4. The allegation that the awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by employing a former employee of the protester, who had access to the protester's proprietary pricing and performance strategies, concerns a dispute between private parties which the General Accounting Office will not entertain in the absence of evidence of government involvement. DECISION Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. (ACS) protests the award of a contract to Technical and Management Services Company (TAMSCO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00383-95-R-0389, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in support of the agency's Streamlined Automated Logistics Transmission System (SALTS) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ACS contends that TAMSCO made material misrepresentations concerning the personnel it would provide under the contract, that TAMSCO's proposed personnel do not satisfy the RFP requirements, that the Navy evaluated proposals using unstated evaluation factors, and that TAMSCO's hiring of an ACS employee provided TAMSCO with an unfair competitive advantage that the agency improperly failed to mitigate. We deny the protest. SALTS is a communications system employed by the Navy to transmit logistics and other administrative data worldwide among more than 2,100 ship and shore sites. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, level-of-effort contract to provide support services for SALTS for a base year with 1 option year. Among other things, the contractor will assist agency personnel in enhancing and streamlining current SALTS information processing systems and will provide an analysis of existing automated data processing (ADP) and telecommunication processes, and their use. The RFP provided for award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable, responsible offeror. No evaluation factors, other than price, were identified for the evaluation of proposals. Offerors were required to provide fixed prices for 12 full-time personnel (1 program manager, 3 systems operators, 5 programmers, and 3 customer service field representatives) to fill 12 discrete labor categories. For each labor category, the RFP identified specific minimum technical requirements and offerors were required to submit a resume for each person proposed. The RFP provided in clause H07, "Personnel/Substitution of Key Personnel," that "no personnel substitutions will be permitted unless such substitutions are necessitated by an individual's sudden illness, death, or termination of employment. . . . All proposed substitutes must have qualifications equal to, or higher than, the qualifications of the person to be replaced." The Navy received proposals from three offerors, including TAMSCO and ACS (the incumbent SALTS contractor) as follows: BASE YEAR OPTION YEAR TAMSCO $976,356 $1,013,664 ACS $1,102,716 $1,135,829 Offeror A $1,204,187 $1,230,473 The Navy evaluated the resumes submitted by TAMSCO and ACS and determined that each firm's proposed personnel satisfied the RFP requirements. Discussions were determined not to be necessary, and award was made to TAMSCO, as the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.