Cubic Applications, Inc.

Cubic Applications, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274768; B-274768.2; B-274768.3 DATE: January 2, 1997 TITLE: Cubic Applications, 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:Cubic Applications, Inc. File: B-274768; B-274768.2; B-274768.3 Date:January 2, 1997 James J. McCullough, Esq., Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., Deneen J. Melander, Esq., James S. Kennell, Esq., and Nancy R. Wagner, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Logicon RDA, an intervenor. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., Thomas J. Duffy, Esq., and Dana B. Current, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency properly awarded a contract for simulation support services to the offeror of the higher technically rated, higher evaluated cost proposal where: (1) the request for proposals stated that technical, management, and past performance factors were significantly more important than cost; (2) the agency reasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in the awardee's proposal being rated as equal to or better than the protester's proposal on each and every evaluation factor; and (3) the source selection authority determined that the overall technical superiority of the awardee's proposal justified the additional probable costs over the life of the contract. DECISION Cubic Applications, Inc. protests the award of a contract for battle simulation support services to Logicon RDA by the Department of the Army pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJA22-95-R-0083. Cubic alleges that the evaluation of proposals and award decision were improper.[1] We deny the protest. Issued on October 24, 1995, by the Army's Wiesbaden Regional Contracting Center (WRCC), the RFP requested proposals for technical support services for computer-driven battle simulation exercises to be conducted at various battle simulation centers in the United States Army Europe (USAREUR) and at other locations as directed by the contracting officer. The RFP described the services that would be required as including, among other things, system configuration management, site system administration, and operation and assistance in computer-driven simulation exercises conducted to determine potential outcomes for various warfighting scenarios. The RFP contemplated award of a 1-year requirements contract with options for 3 additional years; required services would be performed upon issuance of delivery orders and payment would be made on a cost-plus-award-fee basis. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented the greatest value to the government after evaluation of proposals on three non-cost factors--technical, management, and past performance--and cost. The RFP stated that the technical factor was more important than the management factor and that the management factor was more important than the past performance factor. The RFP stated that technical, management, and past performance factors combined would be considered significantly more important than cost (defined in the RFP as at least two times the value of cost). The RFP indicated that cost would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness and that the agency would adjust costs to determine the most probable cost of each offer. Only Logicon and Cubic, the incumbent contractor, submitted proposals.[2] After initial proposals were evaluated and written and oral discussions were held with each offeror, best and final offers (BAFO) were requested. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated BAFOs on technical and management factors, and the contracting officer evaluated proposals on past performance. Logicon's proposal received a total score of [deleted] out of a possible 1,000 points on the non cost factors while Cubic's received a total of [deleted] points. Logicon's proposed total cost of approximately [deleted] was adjusted upward to [deleted], and Cubic's proposed total cost of approximately [deleted] was adjusted upward to approximately [deleted].[3] Based upon the technical superiority of the Logicon proposal, the source selection advisory council (SSAC) recommended that the contract be awarded to Logicon even though its evaluated cost was higher than Cubic's. The source selection authority (SSA) agreed and the contract was awarded to Logicon on September 16.