Matter of:General Physics Federal Systems, Inc.

B-275934 Apr 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Need not be reached by our Office where the record shows that the protester cannot demonstrate a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions. Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's proposal under the technical evaluation factor is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria. That the agency's evaluation of General Physics's proposal was unreasonable. An offeror's proposal was to consist of five discrete items: (1) a completed standard form 33. No other information was considered part of an offeror's proposal. Was to be provided in two parts. The oral presentation slides were to include information on personnel experience. View Decision Matter of: General Physics Federal Systems, Inc. File: B-275934 Date: April 21, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION General Physics Federal Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EG&G Washington Analytical Services, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-96-R-6430, issued by the Department of the Navy to procure technical and engineering support services for three Navy programs--the New Attack Submarine Program, the Submarine Electronics Systems Program, and the AN/BSY-2 Program. General Physics argues that the Navy improperly held inadequate discussions with it, and that the agency's evaluation of General Physics's proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 28, 1996, anticipated award of a cost-plus-award- fee level-of-effort contract to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government. The RFP advised that in determining best value, the Navy would be willing to pay up to a 30 percent premium for a technically superior approach. The RFP requested potential offerors to submit three types of information for review: a proposal, technical information, and cost data. The RFP provided precise definitions for each of these terms. An offeror's proposal was to consist of five discrete items: (1) a completed standard form 33, entitled "Solicitation, Offer and Award"; (2) a completed section B from the RFP, entitled "Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs"; (3) a completed section K, entitled "Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors"; (4) a Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and (5) a list of key personnel names. RFP at 92-93. No other information was considered part of an offeror's proposal. The second type of information, technical, was to be provided in two parts, oral presentation slides and supplemental written information. RFP at 96-98. The oral presentation slides were to include information on personnel experience, technical approach, management approach, and facilities and resources. Under each of these subject areas additional elements were set forth in the RFP. The supplemental information package was to include resumes for key personnel and specialists personnel, a subcontracting management plan, and information on corporate experience, past performance, and the offeror's workforce loading plan. RFP at 98. The third type of information to be provided was the offeror's cost data. Although neither the technical information nor the cost data was considered part of an offeror's proposal, both were required to be submitted by the initial closing date. Upon receipt of an offeror's submission--i.e., its proposal, technical information and cost data--the RFP advised that the agency would schedule an oral presentation to permit the offeror to explain the subject areas and elements addressed in the oral presentation slides. In addition, after the presentation of slides, offerors were required to respond to a sample task provided 2 days prior to the oral presentation. After discussion of the sample task, offerors were required to participate in a question and answer session. RFP at 96. The RFP set forth the following four evaluation factors for assessing each offeror's proposal and technical information: Personnel experience/corporate experience/past performance Technical Approach Management Approach Facilities and Resources The RFP further explained that the personal experience/corporate experience/past performance evaluation factor would be significantly more important than an offeror's technical approach; the technical approach and management approach factors would be of equal weight; and both the technical approach and management approach factors would be significantly more important than the facilities and resources factor. RFP at 132. Finally, the RFP advised offerors that the Navy intended to award this contract without discussions.