Ryan Associates, Inc.

Ryan Associates, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274194; B-274194.2; B-274194.3 DATE: November 26, 1996 TITLE: Ryan Associates, 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:Ryan Associates, Inc. File: B-274194; B-274194.2; B-274194.3 Date:November 26, 1996 Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., and Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for the protester. David R. Johnson, Esq., Kathleen C. Little, Esq., and Robert J. Rothwell, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, for System Planning Corporation, an intervenor. Gerald Q. Brown, Esq., Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Technical evaluation of offerors' proposals is unobjectionable where the agency followed evaluation criteria stated in solicitation, the challenged evaluation findings all have a reasonable basis, and there is no evidence of unequal treatment of offerors. 2. Agency satisfied obligation to conduct meaningful discussions where it reasonably led protester into areas of its proposal requiring clarification or correction. Agency is not required to reopen negotiations to discuss matters first identified in an offeror's best and final offer. 3. Protest alleging "bait and switch" of proposed key personnel is denied where solicitation does not prohibit substitution of key personnel, and the substitution at issue consists of only two of more than [deleted] key personnel proposed by the awardee, both of whom left the awardee's employ after having performed a significant portion of their proposed level of effort. 4. Under a level-of-effort solicitation which sets the labor hours and labor categories, agency's cost realism analysis of proposals and determination of most probable cost is reasonable where it includes: identification of cost issues by the agency; review of audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency; and adjustments to costs based upon negotiated overhead rate ceilings. 5. In best value procurement, where solicitation provides that non-cost factors are of greater importance, record supports cost/technical tradeoff which focuses on technical distinctions between competing proposals and reasonably determines that higher technically rated proposal represents best value despite higher cost. DECISION Ryan Associates, Inc., protests the award of a contract to System Planning Corporation (SPC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0006-96-R-0005, issued by the Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) as a total small business set-aside. In its protests Ryan challenges various aspects of the technical and cost evaluations and the award determination.[1] We deny the protest. The BMDO's mission to develop a robust ballistic missile defense (BMD) includes knowing what countermeasures are currently deployed on ballistic missiles and how these countermeasures could be deployed in the future. This solicitation was for independent, expert, scientific assessments, and technical evaluations concerning the development of BMD countermeasures by potential adversaries of the United States and its allies. These assessments and evaluations were to include technical analysis, modeling and simulations, engineering and design studies, budgetary and cost analysis, and reporting of results. The successful contractor is expected to participate in countermeasures integration program reviews and meetings, as well as information exchanges with other BMD elements.[2] The RFP contemplated award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, level-of-effort contract, on a cost-plus-fixed-fee, task order basis, for a base year with two 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was judged, by an integrated assessment of the cost and other listed evaluation factors, to be the most advantageous to the government. Technical proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of six criteria, in descending order of importance: personnel, understanding and approach, past performance, experience, management, and facilities. Proposals were scored on a color/adjectival basis: "Blue/Exceptional," "Green/Acceptable," "Yellow/Marginal," and "Red/Unacceptable." Proposals also were evaluated on a risk assessment basis: "High," "Moderate," and "Low" based upon the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in performance, along with an assessment of the amount of contractor special effort and government monitoring needed.