USATREX International, Inc., B-275592; B-275592.2, March 6,

USATREX International, Inc., B-275592; B-275592.2, March 6, BNUMBER: B-275592; B-275592.2 DATE: March 6, 1997 TITLE: USATREX International, Inc., B-275592; B-275592.2, March 6, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:USATREX International, Inc. File: B-275592; B-275592.2 Date:March 6, 1997 Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Alison J. Micheli, Esq., Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, for the protester. Terrence O'Donnell, Esq., Ari S. Zymelman, Esq., and Jonathan L. Marcus, Esq., Williams & Connolly, for Century Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's failure to consider proposed subcontractors' experience under a past performance/relevant experience criterion is denied where circumstances warranted limiting such consideration to the past performance/experience of the offeror only. 2. Protest against conduct of improper post-best and final offer discussions is denied where, although such discussions occurred, the record conclusively shows that they were not prejudicial to the protester. 3. Allegation that awardee engaged in prohibited "bait and switch" tactic is denied where there is no showing that the offeror did not intend to provide those employees offered in its proposal, and personnel substitutions are adequately explained by the record and permissible under the contract. DECISION USATREX International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Century Technologies, Inc. (Centech) under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-DTSPO-96-R-3007, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for technical support services in connection with the agency's telecommunications program to link offices and embassies worldwide. USATREX maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and improperly engaged in discussions with Centech after the submission of best and final offers (BAFO), and that Centech engaged in an improper "bait and switch" of personnel. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract against which delivery orders could be placed; the acquisition was conducted as a competitive set aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 637(a) (1994).[1] Offerors were required to submit prices based on fixed, fully burdened hourly rates for 69 discrete classes of employees. Offerors also were to submit detailed technical proposals that included information relating to the firm's management approach and its performance on ongoing or prior contracts, a package of 86 resumes for employees proposed to perform the contract, along with letters of commitment, and a detailed response to a sample task outlined in the RFP. The RFP advised offerors that the agency intended to make award to the firm whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government considering various technical evaluation criteria and price; offerors were specifically advised that the agency would assign numeric point scores to both the technical and price proposals, and that award would be made to the firm whose proposal received the highest overall numeric score based on a 100-point scale. The technical evaluation criteria were worth up to 70 points and price 30 points. There were three technical evaluation criteria: qualifications and experience of proposed staff (35 possible points); past performance/relevant experience on similar projects (25 points); and management approach (including the sample task) (10 points). Price points were to be assigned based on the relationship among the competing offerors' prices, with the lowest-priced proposal receiving the maximum of 30 points, and the remaining proposals receiving proportionally fewer points. The agency received three timely initial proposals, all of which were evaluated as technically acceptable. The agency concluded that it was unnecessary to engage in technical discussions with the offerors and, accordingly, simply provided the firms an opportunity to submit revised pricing in their BAFOs. After receiving and evaluating the BAFOs, the agency scored the proposals as follows: CENTECH USATREX OFFEROR "C" Qualif./Exp. of Proposed Staff 32.35 33.58 32.19 Past Perf./ Relevant Exp.