Sigmatech, Inc.

Sigmatech, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271821; B-271821.2 DATE: August 22, 1996 TITLE: Sigmatech, 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:Sigmatech, Inc. File: B-271821; B-271821.2 Date:August 22, 1996 Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and David A. Vogel, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Carol P. Rosenbaum, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that offerors were required to have experience with particular weapon systems supported by contract, and protester's assertion that its experience with other weapon systems should have been considered equivalent reflects mere disagreement with the agency's judgment. 2. Agency reasonably concluded that overall level of personnel proposed by protester was inadequate to meet the government's requirements under a task order contract where protester's proposed staffing level was based on the unrealistic assumption that the government's requirements would be met through a steady-state level of effort equal to an average of the total contract requirements. 3. Where awardees each proposed over three times more personnel with demonstrated experience supporting the weapons systems to be supported by this contract than did the protester, and solicitation provided that an offeror's evaluated capabilities to perform the contract requirements was significantly more important than any other evaluation factor, there is no basis to conclude that protester's slightly lower-cost proposal offered greater value to the government than awardees' proposals. 4. Where solicitation provided that failure to demonstrate relevant experience would be a negative evaluation factor, agency's advice during pre-proposal conference that offerors' abilities to affirmatively demonstrate such experience would be an enhancement did not mislead offerors so as to warrant sustaining the protest. DECISION Sigmatech, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's contract awards to Dynamics Research Corporation (DRC), Decisions and Advanced Technology Associates, Inc. (DATA) and System Dynamics International, Inc. (SDI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAJ09-95-R-0608. The RFP sought support services for the Army's Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM) and Program Executive Office (PEO) in connection with the Programmatic and Technical Support (PATS) III program. Sigmatech maintains that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as unacceptable, and asserts that its proposal should have been assessed as offering greater value to the government than those of the awardees. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 22, 1995, the Army issued the solicitation at issue here.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of multiple cost-reimbursement task order contracts to provide programmatic support for specified ATCOM/PEO weapons systems. Specifically, the RFP stated: "the Government contemplates up to three awards (full and open, small business, 8a),"[2] and established a minimum value of $300,000 and an estimated maximum value of $33 million for each contract. Section M of the RFP states that proposals would be evaluated in three areas--capabilities, past performance, and cost--and that capabilities were significantly more important than past performance, which was, in turn, more important than cost. Regarding evaluation of offerors' capabilities, section M states: "This Evaluation Area is used to gauge the Government's perception of the ability of a Contractor to successfully complete the diverse and potentially complex work likely to be tasked under the SOW in support of multiple weapon systems set forth in Attachment 2."[3] Section M further established three factors to be considered in evaluating offerors' capabilities: corporate capabilities, corporate historical experience, and key personnel. With regard to key personnel, the RFP required offerors to submit resumes for the prime and subcontractor personnel being proposed, stating that up to 200 resumes could be submitted.