Theta Engineering, Inc.

Theta Engineering, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271065; B-271065.2 DATE: June 12, 1996 TITLE: Theta Engineering, Inc. ********************************************************************** 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:Theta Engineering, Inc. File: B-271065; B-271065.2 Date:June 12, 1996 Thomas B. Archbold, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., for the protester. Gerald T. Nielsen, Esq., Thomas F. Williamson, Esq., and Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for Engineering/Documentation Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Colonel Nicholas P. Retson and Major Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency. Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated cost proposals by upwardly adjusting protester's proposed costs and conversely failing to upwardly adjust awardee's proposed cost in certain cost elements, with result that the protester's cost was higher than the awardee's is denied, where upward adjustment of protester's cost was reasonable in two challenged areas, and other adjustments in the protester's or awardee's cost proposal would not displace awardee as the low offeror. 2. Where protester fails to show that its proposal was technically superior to awardee's proposal--and even assuming the protester's argument to be valid that its technical proposal should have been rated technically equal to awardee's technical proposal--cost properly became the important factor for selection, and protester was not entitled to the award because its evaluated cost was not low. DECISION Theta Engineering, Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests the award of a cost-plus-base/award fee contract to Engineering/Documentation Systems, Inc. (EDSI) under request for proposal (RFP) No. DAKF36-95-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Fort Drum, New York for direct support and general support (DS/GS) maintenance services and repair of commercial and tactical equipment in various commodity groups at several military facilities. Theta principally challenges the evaluation of cost and technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, as amended, contemplated the award of the cost reimbursement contract for a base period with 5 option years. The DS/GS maintenance services to be furnished by the successful contractor include planning and control, maintenance supply, quality control and associated services in the following major commodity groups, among others: (1) automotive equipment; (2) combat vehicles; (3) construction equipment; (4) electronic and communication equipment; (5) weapons/armaments; and (6) other general equipment. The agency reports that because of the current "downsizing" of the Army--here, the inactivation of a separate infantry brigade--the RFP's estimated work load reflected a 25-percent reduction for calendar year 1996 from calendar year 1994 levels. The RFP provided that award would be based on the best overall proposal considering the stated evaluation factors. The RFP listed the following two major factors: (1) quality; and (2) cost. The RFP stated that "quality [was] significantly more important than cost." The subfactors of the quality factor, listed in order of importance, were technical, management, and past performance. The subfactors of the cost factor, again listed in order of importance, were most probable cost/cost realism, cost tracking and control system, total estimated cost, and fee structure. Although the RFP stated that technical ("quality") factors were more important than cost, offerors were advised that the importance of cost would increase "as relative differences between the overall quality of proposals decrease." As relevant here, the RFP stated that under the subfactor, most probable cost/cost realism, the agency would assess the cost realism of each offer by developing a most probable cost estimate for the proposal based on the offeror's total overall approach. The RFP required offerors to complete a cost data sheet matrix listing every labor classification required to accomplish the tasks, the quantities of each classification required, the labor rate, any overtime hours needed, as well as other financial information. The RFP contained wage rate determinations by the Department of Labor for each facility to be furnished. Finally, the RFP, by amendment No.