Barton ATC, Inc.

Barton ATC, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271877; B-271878 DATE: August 6, 1996 TITLE: Barton ATC, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Barton ATC, Inc. File: B-271877; B-271878 Date:August 6, 1996 Travis L. Pierson for the protester. Col. Nicholas P. Retson, and Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sylvia Schatz, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency determination that proposals were technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the proposals failed to indicate an acceptance of, and a clear, unambiguous and unconditional commitment to perform in accordance with, the solicitation provisions regarding (1) the necessity for contracting officer approval before the contractor can be compensated for furnishing additional meteorological services outside the normal hours of operation specified in the solicitations and (2) the required personnel qualifications. DECISION Barton ATC, Inc. protests the proposed award of contracts to Weather Data Services, Inc. under requests for proposals (RFP) Nos. DAHA90-95-R-0049 and DAHA90-95-R-0048, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for meteorological services for Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Selfridge, Michigan (RFP -0049) and Buckley Air National Guard Base in Denver, Colorado (RFP -0048). Barton, the incumbent for both contracts, primarily challenges NGB's determination that its technical proposals under both solicitations were unacceptable. We deny the protests. The solicitations provided for the contractor to furnish meteorological services such as weather watch, surface weather observations, aircrew weather briefings, meteorological watch, weather warnings and advisories, and terminal forecasting from facilities at the bases. The evaluation schemes in both RFPs were identical; both contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year and 4 option years to the offeror whose proposal best satisfies the government's requirements based on consideration of two factors, technical and price, with technical being significantly more important than price. NGB found Barton's technical proposals to contain numerous statements that were either ambiguous or conflicted with the terms of the RFPs. Although NGB considered Barton's proposals unacceptable, it included them in the competitive range for discussion purposes. During the ensuing discussions, the agency advised Barton in writing of the areas in its proposals that were ambiguous or in conflict with specific paragraphs in the solicitations. The agency then requested best and final offers (BAFO). NGB found that although Barton's subsequent BAFOs addressed some of the agency's concerns, the proposals failed to resolve a number of the identified concerns and as a result remained technically unacceptable. Upon learning of the resulting elimination of its proposals from the competitive range in both procurements, Barton filed these protests with our Office. (NGB has informed our Office that it intends to make award to Weather Data Services, Inc. under both RFPs.) Barton challenges NGB's determination that its BAFOs were technically unacceptable, arguing that its BAFOs did not contain any statements that were ambiguous or in conflict with RFP requirements. The procuring agency has the primary responsibility for evaluating the technical information supplied by an offeror and determining the technical acceptability of the offeror's proposal; we will not disturb a determination with respect to technical acceptability unless it is shown to be unreasonable. See Intelligent Env'ts, B-256170.2, Nov. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 210. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's technical judgment does not establish that it was unreasonable. See Diversified Technical Consultants, Ltd., B-250986, Feb. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 161. We find that the agency reasonably determined that Barton's BAFOs were technically unacceptable on the basis that they failed to indicate a clear, unambiguous acceptance of, and commitment to perform in accordance with, the solicitation requirements. For example, the solicitations provided for the possibility that the contractor might receive requests for weather support outside the normal hours of operation specified in the solicitations, and requested unit prices for furnishing estimated numbers of such contingency hours. The statements of work (SOW) cited as examples of emergencies or special events requiring such contingency support such situations as exercises, surge requirements, disasters, accident and rescue operations, deployments, nighttime flying, and severe weather.