Computer Products, Inc.

B-271920 Aug 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Substitution of 3 of 13 proposed key personnel after award is not improper where the offeror provided resumes. Nothing in the record suggests that the names were submitted other than in good faith. Cost realism analysis of the awardee's proposal was reasonable where agency considered the realism of the awardee's proposed direct and indirect labor costs. Subcontractor costs and the protester has not pointed to any specific costs that it contends are unrealistic. Protest that awardee is ineligible for award because firm did not meet eligibility requirement is denied where protester has not demonstrated any plausible indication that it was prejudiced by imprecise wording in solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Computer Products, Inc. File: B-271920 Date: August 9, 1996 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Computer Products, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Digital Control Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-95-R-2205, issued by the Department of the Navy as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside for automated data processing and information management support services in support of the Metrology System for Uniform Recall and Reporting (MEASURE) Program for the Naval Aviation Depot Operations Center (NADOC), Patuxent River, Maryland. Computer Products alleges that the awardee engaged in "bait and switch" tactics by proposing key personnel it did not intend to provide, and that the agency performed an improper cost realism analysis. Computer Products also contends that Digital's proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because Digital is not serviced by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Washington district office as required by the solicitation. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued June 30, 1995, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with three 1-year options and required offerors to submit both a technical and cost proposal. The RFP specified that offers were being solicited only from small business concerns expressly certified by SBA for participation in SBA's 8(a) program which, among other things, have an approved business plan on file with and are serviced by "SBA Washington." The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the combination of technical merit and cost most favorable to the government. The RFP advised that cost proposals would be evaluated for realism. In their technical proposals, offerors were to submit detailed resumes of 13 key personnel under 6 labor categories. [1] Offerors were required to propose key personnel that the offeror reasonably expected, as of the date of the proposal, would be available for contract performance. In this regard, the solicitation set forth several requirements aimed at ensuring that the personnel proposed would be those performing the contract and limiting personnel substitutions. For example, the resumes were to indicate whether proposed personnel were currently employed by the offeror; for personnel not currently employed by the offeror, the resumes were to include signed statements that the individual authorized the use of the resume. Offerors submitting best and final offers (BAFO) were also to certify that each individual proposed was contacted after the date of the request for BAFOs and confirmed that he or she was available for contract performance. Failure to provide the certification would make the BAFO unacceptable. The RFP also provided that, during the first 90 days of contract performance, the offeror could make no personnel substitutions unless such substitutions were necessitated by an individual's sudden illness, death, or termination of employment. Six offerors submitted proposals by the September 8 closing date. The proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation committee and three proposals, including those submitted by Computer Products and Digital, were determined to be in the competitive range. The three competitive range offerors were advised of the deficiencies in their proposals and asked to submit revised technical proposals. All three revised technical proposals were rated as acceptable on each subfactor with the exception that Digital's proposal was rated by the contracting officer as being "in the high end of the acceptable range" on the personnel experience subfactor. [2] Offerors were also advised of areas in their cost proposals considered to be understated and were requested to submit BAFOs. Each offeror submitted revised cost proposals but made no additional changes to its technical proposal. Based on its cost realism analysis, the agency made no adjustments to Computer Products's proposed costs of [deleted]; Digital's proposed costs of [deleted] were adjusted upward [deleted] in the areas of [deleted] for a total of [deleted].