Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc.

Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc. BNUMBER: B-272261; B-272261.2 DATE: September 18, 1996 TITLE: Research Analysis and Maintenance, 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:Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc. File: B-272261; B-272261.2 Date:September 18, 1996 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., and Paul N. Wengert, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester. Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., Doyle and Bachman, an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Gary Theodore, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In a negotiated procurement for computer system and software engineering support services, protest that the contracting agency was required to consider Capability Maturity Model software process assessments under various technical evaluation factors is denied where the solicitation only provided for the use of the Capability Maturity Model in the evaluation of proposals under one evaluation subfactor. 2. Protest that the contracting agency misapplied the Capability Maturity Model in assessing the protester's and awardee's software process risk is denied where the protester merely disagrees with the agency's risk assessment and does not show the agency's judgment to be unreasonable. 3. In a procurement for the award of a time-and-materials contract with fixed-price burdened labor rates, the contracting officer reasonably evaluated the realism of the offerors' proposed labor rates, in accordance with the solicitation, where the agency assessed the offerors' ability to attract, hire, and retain qualified personnel during the contract at the proposed rates. 4. The contracting agency did not coerce or mislead the protester into raising its proposed labor rates, where the agency was reasonably concerned with the protester's ability to hire and retain qualified personnel due to its low proposed labor rates and asked the protester during discussions to substantiate how it intended to hire and retain qualified personnel at the rates proposed; the protester's decision to increase its proposed labor rates reflected the exercise of the firm's business judgment. 5. Protest that the awardee's proposed small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan does not satisfy the solicitation requirements is denied where the solicitation required offerors to subcontract at least 20 percent of the contract value to small business concerns and to make a good faith effort to subcontract at least 5 percent of the contract value to small disadvantaged business concerns; the awardee proposed subcontracting more than 20 percent of the contract value to two subcontractors, a small business concern and a small disadvantaged business concern; and the protester has not shown that the agency's determination that the awardee made a good faith effort to meet the small disadvantaged business subcontracting goal was unreasonable or not in accord with the solicitation requirements. 6. The contracting agency reasonably determined that any potential organizational conflict of interest involving a proposed subcontractor of the awardee would be avoided or mitigated through the assignment of work under contract task orders. DECISION Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc. (RAM) protests the award of a contract to Ilex Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-95-R-H601, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command for "system and software engineering support services for Mission Critical Defense Systems." RAM challenges the agency's technical and cost evaluations, asserts that the agency conducted misleading discussions that caused the protester to increase its proposed labor rates, claims that Ilex's proposed level of subcontracting did not comply with the RFP requirements, and argues that a proposed Ilex subcontractor has an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a time-and-materials, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for system and software engineering support services. The statement of work (SOW) detailed the services that could be ordered under the contract, including support services for system and software acquisition, for the establishment and maintenance of a software support environment, and for software maintenance and enhancement.