Science and Engineering Services, Inc., B-276620, July 3,

B-276620 Jul 03, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LOGSA is a logistics products and services organization that is the Army's focal point for collection. Most Probable Cost (MPC). [1] The technical area was said to be the most important. It was worth more than each other area individually. Was said to be significantly more important than the management area. The MPC area was slightly more important than the past performance area and substantially more important than the management area. The past performance was slightly more important than the management area. Of which the first two each were comprised of four equally weighted factors. The past performance area was rated with adjectival ratings of superior. Proposal risk was assessed with ratings of low. View Decision Matter of: Science and Engineering Services, Inc. File: B-276620 Date: July 3, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Science and Engineering Services, Inc. (SES) protests the award of a contract to Logistics, Engineering & Environmental Support Services, Incorporated (LESCO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-97-R- 0010, a total small business set-aside, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Missile Command (USAMC), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, for support services for the USAMC Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 15, 1996, contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity time-and-materials contract to provide functional, direct, on-site support services to LOGSA and LOGSA-supported customers for a 36-month period. LOGSA is a logistics products and services organization that is the Army's focal point for collection, integration, analysis, and distribution of logistics data. LOGSA supports a diverse array of customers worldwide, including the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Nuclear Agency, forestry service, and allied nations. The RFP work includes development of information, maintenance, configuration management, training, evaluation and test support, integrated logistics support, and special projects. The RFP provided for award to be made without discussions under a best value evaluation scheme, considering four evaluation areas: Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Most Probable Cost (MPC). [1] The technical area was said to be the most important; it was worth more than each other area individually, but not in combination, and was said to be significantly more important than the management area, substantially more important than the past performance area, and slightly more important than the MPC area. The MPC area was slightly more important than the past performance area and substantially more important than the management area. The past performance was slightly more important than the management area. Under the technical area, the RFP listed four equally weighted evaluation elements, of which the first two each were comprised of four equally weighted factors, as follows: (A) Element 1. The offer demonstrates an understanding of the Army functions of: Factor 1. Integrated Logistics Support Factor 2. Readiness Analysis Factor 3. Maintenance, Supply, and Transportation Factor 4. Conventional [Arms] Control Treaties and Agreements (B) Element 2. Offeror demonstrates an understanding of Army and DOD current and emerging automated information systems in the following areas: Factor 1. Logistics and Financial Data Base Factor 2. DOD Plan to Integrate Information Systems Including The Army Approach To A Seamless System Factor 3. Expert Systems Factor 4. Re-engineering Initiatives (C) Element 3. Qualifications of personnel to include education, training, and experience and the relevance and significance of the experience to the required effort. (D) Element 4. Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the [statement of work] by his approach to the sample delivery orders, logistics integrated data base and arms control support. The RFP advised that the MPC would be the government's estimate of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror's technical and management approaches adjusted by any additional cost to the government. The evaluation, among other things, included evaluating the offeror's indirect expense rate, projected rates, and projected expense pools. Three offerors, including SES and LESCO, submitted proposals by the December 5 closing date. The Army evaluated the technical and management proposals under an adjectival rating scale of outstanding, very good, satisfactory, poor and unacceptable. The past performance area was rated with adjectival ratings of superior, good, adequate, and inadequate, and proposal risk was assessed with ratings of low, moderate, or high.