Systems Engineering & Management Company

B-275786 Mar 26, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency properly concluded that awardee's relatively low proposed wage rates were realistic where the awardee's proposal explained the assumptions behind its labor rates and indirect rates. Agency reasonably evaluated performance risk as low where there were a much greater number of blue/exceptional reports. The other three CLINs were as follows: CLIN 0002. The three selection criteria were technical. There were two equally weighted technical subfactors. There were five. This [labor category] mix is equally divided between on-site and off-site for all locations. Work will be equally allocated among them).". SEMCO and nine other offerors were eligible only for the one. The protester alleges further that the Air Force failed to consider that RJO's burdened labor rates were based on an overhead rate [DELETED] than RJO's historical rates and a general and administrative (G&A) rate [DELETED] than that of the preceding fiscal year. View Decision Matter of: Systems Engineering & Management Company File: B-275786 Date: March 26, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Systems Engineering & Management Company (SEMCO) protests the award of a contract to RJO Enterprises, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-95-R-0083, issued by the Department of the Air Force for nonpersonal advisory and assistance services. SEMCO principally contends that the Air Force failed to conduct a reasonable price realism analysis of RJO's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 1, 1996, the agency issued the solicitation for award of three time and materials, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts for acquisition logistics support services, providing logistic studies and analysis and management support for acquisition in accordance with a statement of objective (SOO) attached to the solicitation. [1] The three awardees would compete for task orders issued in accordance with the SOO in support of system management staff and system program offices at the aeronautical systems center (ASC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), in Dayton, Ohio; five Air Logistics Centers; and Eglin AFB, Florida. [2] The schedule consisted of four contract line item numbers (CLIN), the principal effort being CLIN 0001, for studies, analyses, and management support as more specifically defined by the individual task orders. The other three CLINs were as follows: CLIN 0002, data; CLIN 0003, materials and subcontracting in support of CLIN 0001; and CLIN 0004, a cost reimbursable line item for travel and computer services. Paragraph H.11 of the solicitation provided that a contractor could only subcontract, under CLIN 0003, to satisfy a need for unique capabilities or specialized personnel not available from personnel regularly assigned to the contract, and only with the prior approval of the contracting officer and provided for negotiation of a provisional burden rate for each task order so issued. The RFP provided that the agency would conduct the source selection process in accordance with Appendix BB of the Air Force supplement to the FAR and award contracts to the offerors whose proposals appeared most advantageous to the government. The three selection criteria were technical; management and corporate capability; and price, in that order of importance. The RFP advised offerors that evaluators would assess each offeror's understanding of/compliance with requirements and the soundness of its approach, to judge how well each proposal satisfied the evaluation criteria. Further, the agency would develop a risk assessment under each evaluation factor--proposal risk, based on the offeror's proposal, and performance risk, based on the offeror's record of past performance as reported by other sources. [3] In addition to the risk ratings, the RFP provided that proposals would be given color/adjectival ratings under the technical and management areas. There were two equally weighted technical subfactors, integration problem and sample task orders. The first required an offeror to respond to an integration problem provided with the RFP, for the purpose of demonstrating the ability to integrate logistics functions. The second required an offeror to propose a technical approach to each of three specific taskings, for the purpose of demonstrating procedures for controlling performance during the simultaneous performance of three tasks at two locations. There were five, equally weighted management/corporate capability subfactors, including resumes, staffing and task order management plan, subcontract management, work force support, and additional resources. In pertinent part, the RFP stated that, under the second of these subfactors, staffing and task order management plan, the agency would evaluate each offeror's staffing plan, to assess its approach to recruiting, retaining, and training of a qualified work force.