Defense Technology, Inc.

B-271682 Jul 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency failed to evaluate the increased technical risk which allegedly would result from awardee's proposal to reduce compensation for its incumbent technical instructors is denied where agency reasonably concluded that the proposed reduction would not adversely affect the quality of performance. Because (1) the instructors would still be compensated at above-market rates (exceeding those at which the protester's instructors were to be paid). That were to be taught by the contractor. The RFP stated that "[t]wo instructors will be required simultaneously to perform in accordance with the Statement of Work. Which was described as having four times the weight of (2) corporate experience. View Decision Matter of: Defense Technology, Inc. File: B-271682 Date: July 17, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest that agency failed to evaluate the increased technical risk which allegedly would result from awardee's proposal to reduce compensation for its incumbent technical instructors is denied where agency reasonably concluded that the proposed reduction would not adversely affect the quality of performance, because (1) the instructors would still be compensated at above-market rates (exceeding those at which the protester's instructors were to be paid); (2) the awardee's proposal indicated an ability readily to replace its proposed instructors; and (3) any risks associated with substitutions would be minimal since the solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract and provided that any replacement personnel required the prior approval of the contracting officer and had to possess qualifications equal to or higher than the qualifications of the personnel being replaced. Attorneys DECISION Defense Technology, Inc. (DTI) protests the award of a contract to VSE, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-95-R-0008, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Naval Ordnance Station (NAVORDSTA), Louisville, Kentucky, for training program support for the Mark 15 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). DTI challenges the evaluation of technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity labor-hour contract to furnish CIWS training and instruction support to NAVORDSTA for a 1-year base period, with four 1-year option periods. The solicitation listed 10 courses on the Mark 15 CIWS, ranging in length from 1 to 12 weeks, that were to be taught by the contractor. The RFP stated that "[t]wo instructors will be required simultaneously to perform in accordance with the Statement of Work," and estimated the agency's annual requirement at 4,174 regular and 120 overtime technical instructor hours. The solicitation listed three technical evaluation factors: (1) personnel qualifications, which was described as having four times the weight of (2) corporate experience--including subfactors for experience in similar or related fields and record of past performance--and (3) management/organization combined. In addition, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the realism of the offerors' estimated prices, cautioning that unrealistic personnel compensation rates would not only be considered in the cost realism evaluation, but could also reduce the technical score. Award was to be made to the offeror whose conforming proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government; the solicitation specified that the proposal offering the best value "will be selected using a weighted methodology where the technical score is assigned more weight than price, but where each additional point of technical superiority diminishes at an increasing rate." The solicitation stated that the government was "willing to pay a Premium Amount, equal to 30% . . . to move from the lowest evaluated price of a minimally technically acceptable proposal (score of 70) to the highest achievable technical proposal (score of 100)." (The RFP set forth a mathematical (polynomial) formula by which the premium factor the government was willing to pay could be determined for any given difference in technical score between acceptable proposals. See General Offshore Corp.-Riedel Co., a Joint Venture, B-271144.2; B-271144.3, July 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. ___. The Navy received three offers, including those of VSE (the incumbent contractor) and DTI. Although the composite technical score of DTI's initial proposal warranted an adjectival rating of "good," and application of the agency's mathematical formula to DTI's technical score and low price indicated that DTI's initial proposal was the most advantageous, the agency determined that DTI's proposal was unacceptable.