Logicon RDA, B-276240; B-276240.2; B-276240.3, May 23, 1997

Logicon RDA, B-276240; B-276240.2; B-276240.3, May 23, 1997 BNUMBER: B-276240; B-276240.2; B-276240.3 DATE: May 23, 1997 TITLE: Logicon RDA, B-276240; B-276240.2; B-276240.3, May 23, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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:Logicon RDA File: B-276240; B-276240.2; B-276240.3 Date:May 23, 1997 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for Hughes Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Elaine A. Eder, Esq., and Timothy A. Chenault, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against termination of protester's contract is denied where agency reasonably determined, after award, that protester's use of a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) as a subcontractor was contrary to Federal Acquisition Regulation prohibition against FFRDCs competing with private firms under federal government solicitations. DECISION Logicon RDA protests the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard's terminating for the convenience of the government the contract awarded to Logicon under request for proposals No. DTCG39-96-R-E00093, for research and development services in the areas of fire science and fire protection engineering. The Coast Guard terminated Logicon's contract after concluding that Logicon's proposal of Sandia National Laboratories--a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE)--as a subcontractor was inconsistent with the regulations prohibiting FFRDCs from competing with private concerns. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, task order, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research in the areas of fire science, fire protection engineering, toxicity, human factors, reliability, and risk assessment. The solicitation set forth an estimated level of effort of 70,500 hours (over 5 years), which were allocated among 15 labor categories (5 key and 10 non-key). Offerors were required to propose a specific individual for each key labor category. In addition, offerors were required to certify their ability to perform both "nonstandard" and various types of standard testing either in-house, through subcontractors, or by procuring testing. The solicitation provided for award to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the greatest value to the government under two evaluation categories: (1) technical (including subfactors for past performance, personnel and facilities), and (2) cost, which was significantly less important than technical. Proposals were received from three offerors, including Hughes and Logicon. Following discussions, the Coast Guard requested best and final offers (BAFO) and, based on its evaluation, found Logicon's offer to be the best value. In this regard, although Hughes's and Logicon's proposals received the same ratings in the facilities subcategory, the agency determined that Logicon's proposed facilities were slightly more advantageous. In addition, Logicon was evaluated as possessing a significant advantage with respect to past performance. The agency concluded that Logicon's advantage in these areas offset Hughes's evaluated advantage with respect to proposed personnel. Further, Logicon's proposal had the lowest proposed and evaluated cost. Upon learning of the resulting award to Logicon, Hughes wrote to the agency to complain that Logicon's proposal of Sandia as a subcontractor was improper. After reviewing the matter, the Coast Guard agreed that applicable regulations prohibited the use of Sandia; it then withdrew the award to Logicon and made award to Hughes. Logicon then filed this protest, maintaining that its contract was properly awarded and therefore should be reinstated. Our Office generally will not review an agency's decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of the government; such decisions are a matter of contract administration which is not within our bid protest function. However, we will review such a termination where, as here, it is based upon an agency determination that the initial contract award was improper. Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp., B-219988.3, Dec. 16, 1985, 85-2 CPD para.