Matter of:Science & Technology, Inc.; Madison Services, Inc.

Matter of:Science & Technology, Inc.; Madison Services, Inc. BNUMBER: B-272748; B-272748.2; B-272748.3; B-272748.4 DATE: October 25, 1996 TITLE: Matter of:Science & Technology, Inc.; Madison Services, 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:Science & Technology, Inc.; Madison Services, Inc. File: B-272748; B-272748.2; B-272748.3; B-272748.4 Date:October 25, 1996 E. Manning Seltzer, Esq., and Mark E. Davis, Esq., Seltzer & Rosen, for Science & Technology, Inc., and Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for Madison Services, Inc., the protesters. Nancy O. Dix, Esq., Gray Cary Ware Freidenrich, for Steinhoff & Sadler, Inc., an intervenor. Major Michael J. O'Farrell and Gregory A. Lund, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting officials misrepresented protester's past performance record is denied where past performance conclusions are reasonably supported by the record, and there is no evidence that contracting officials were biased against the protester or otherwise acted in bad faith. 2. Protest that awardee was improperly permitted to rely on subcontractors' experience under various technical evaluation factors is denied where the solicitation did not restrict offerors from proposing subcontractors or relying on their experience. 3. Protest that contracting agency improperly relied on an unstated evaluation factor concerning offeror's phase-out approach is denied where the solicitation proposal preparation instructions clearly put offerors on notice that a detailed phase-out plan was required and would be evaluated under the general management evaluation factor. 4. Protest that agency arbitrarily deducted points from second-ranked offeror's general management score is denied where the lower point score does not reflect deductions, but rather reflects what the agency reasonably determined was the level of quality indicated in this area of the offeror's proposal. 5. Protest that awardee proposed a key employee which it was not authorized to propose and did not intend to hire is denied where record as a whole indicates that awardee reasonably believed the individual consented to being proposed and that the employee would go to work for the awardee in the event it received the contract. 6. Protest that contracting agency performed improper price realism analysis is denied where: (1) adequate price competition was received; (2) the agency compared offerors' proposed prices with the government's price estimate; and (3) awardee's proposed pricing was consistent with the number of employees it had proposed. DECISION Science & Technologies, Inc. (Scitek) and Madison Services, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Steinhoff & Sadler, Inc. (SSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT63-95-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for all engineering and maintenance services at the Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Scitek, the incumbent--which has been performing these services since 1991 under a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) type contract--contends that the Army misrepresented its past performance history in bad faith, leading to a misevaluation of its proposal. Madison also contends that the agency misevaluated both the awardee's and its own proposal, and further alleges that SSI engaged in an improper "bait and switch" by proposing a key employee without proper authorization to use that individual's resume. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside on August 18, 1995, and contemplated the award of a fixed price contract with some indefinite quantity line items for a base year and 4 option years. Collectively, the range of DEH services being procured is analogous to those required to "run a small city"; under the RFP, the successful contractor is responsible for performing various tasks in 22 areas encompassing road work, construction work, facilities maintenance, environmental work, and supply/storage. The RFP required price and technical proposals, and provided that award would be made on a "best value" basis.