Environmental Affairs Management, Inc., B-277270, September

B-277270 Sep 23, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest alleging that agency officials provided the awardee inside information that gave it a competitive advantage and that evaluators were biased in favor of the awardee is denied where the protester has provided no detail to substantiate its allegations and there is nothing in the record to support them. Without first discussing the matter with the protester is denied where: (1) the RFP was for a cost-plus-award-fee contract and clearly indicated that offers should include an award fee. Higher-cost proposal was permissible where the agency reasonably determined that the superior technical merit of the awardee's proposal was worth its higher cost. That NASA's evaluation of EAM's proposal was unreasonable. View Decision Matter of: Environmental Affairs Management, Inc. File: B-277270 Date: September 23, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Environmental Affairs Management, Inc. (EAM) protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) award of a cost-plus-award- fee contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 3-046562. EAM alleges that SAIC had access to inside information, that NASA's evaluation of EAM's proposal was unreasonable, that NASA incorrectly made an upward adjustment to EAM's price without first having discussed the matter with EAM, and that NASA should have selected EAM on the basis of its lowest-cost, technically acceptable proposal. [1] We deny the protest. Issued on December 9, 1996, the RFP solicited proposals for providing general and technical support services to the Office of Environmental Programs of NASA Lewis Research Center for a base period of 1 year and included options for 4 additional years. The RFP required that initial proposals be submitted by February 7, 1997, and cautioned that the agency intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals without discussions. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on three factors: mission suitability, relevant experience and past performance, and cost. The RFP indicated that the mission suitability and cost factors were equal in importance and that each was considered more important than the relevant experience and past performance factor. Only the mission suitability factor and its several subfactors were to be given point scores in the technical evaluation. Cost was to be evaluated for realism and to determine the probable cost to the government. The relevant experience and past performance factor was to be adjectivally rated. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated to determine which represented the best value to the government and cautioned that the contract might be awarded to an offeror whose proposal was higher priced if that proposal was considered to be sufficiently more advantageous to justify the higher proposed price. Seven offers were received and, because one offeror withdrew its proposal, six offers were evaluated and ranked by the source evaluation committee (SEC). SAIC's proposal received the highest technical score with a total of [deleted] (out of 1,000 possible points) for an overall technical rating of "[deleted}" while EAM's proposal received the third-highest technical score with a total of [deleted] points for an overall technical rating of "[deleted]." SAIC's proposed costs plus fee for the potential 5-year life of the contract were approximately $[deleted] million; this amount was accepted by the agency's price analyst as the most probable cost of having SAIC perform the work. [2] EAM's proposed costs were roughly $[deleted] million. However, because EAM's proposal did not include any award fee in its proposed costs, [3] the agency made an upward adjustment to EAM's proposed costs of approximately $[deleted] million, representing [deleted]-percent award fee, and concluded that EAM's most probable cost was approximately $[deleted] million. No discussions were held. After a briefing by the SEC, the source selection authority (SSA) selected SAIC for contract award because SAIC's significantly higher technical score outweighed its slightly higher probable cost. The contract was awarded to SAIC on May 29. EAM was debriefed on June 2 and filed this protest shortly thereafter. The protester contends that it was at a competitive disadvantage because SAIC, which was already performing work under a contract with NASA, had access to inside information concerning current and future projects and key personnel within the Office of Environmental Programs, while EAM did not. The protester also contends that NASA personnel may have told SAIC that certain RFP specifications would not have to be met.