Sytel, Inc., B-277849.2; B-277849.3,

Sytel, Inc., B-277849.2; B-277849.3, BNUMBER: B-277849.2; B-277849.3 DATE: January 8, 1998 TITLE: Sytel, Inc., B-277849.2; B-277849.3, ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Sytel, Inc. File: B-277849.2; B-277849.3 Date:January 8, 1998 Keith L. Baker, Esq., Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., and Timi E. Nickerson, Esq., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC; and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for the protester. Lindsay Ball for Dynacs Engineering Co., Inc., the intervenor. Bernard J. Roan, Esq., and Rami S. Hanash, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably credited one proposal based on favorable impressions of key personnel during discussions and downgraded another proposal for the apparent lack of teamwork of key personnel during discussions where solicitation indicated agency could consider such information. 2. Agency reasonably determined that the awardee's award fee approach provided sufficient performance incentives, notwithstanding that the awardee proposed no additional fee in the event the agency exercised an option to acquire additional labor hours during the contract performance period. 3. Agency reasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's Total Compensation Plans as comparable where the overall cost difference between the two plans, considering all wages and fringe benefits, was negligible. 4. Agency properly conducted discussions expressing concern regarding the protester's labor rates where they were less than those paid by the incumbent and the protester's proposal did not adequately justify such lower rates. 5. Protester's post-protest statement that, but for the agency's alleged improper and misleading discussions, it would have reduced the labor rates in its best and final offer in an amount sufficient to negate the awardee's cost advantage does not establish a reasonable possibility of prejudice, where there is no credible evidence supporting this statement. 6. Agency's inadvertent release of the protester's discussion letter to the awardee provides no basis to disturb the award where the record evidences that it was not read by the awardee and that the awardee received no competitive advantage. DECISION Sytel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dynacs Engineering Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 10-97-0001, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for engineering development services at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, level-of-effort contract for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP required an estimated 387,115 "basic labor hours" per year, which could be increased by up to an additional 1,935,575 "option hours" over the 5-year contract period. The RFP provided for a best value award based upon the following factors and subfactors: 1. Mission Suitability (1,000 points) a. Key Personnel (300 points) b. Management Approach and Resource Application (300 points) c. Technical Approach (225 points) d. Skill Mix/Staffing Plan (175 points) 2. Cost 3. Relevant Experience and Past Performance Mission Suitability and Cost were equally important; Relevant Experience and Past Performance was somewhat less important than either Mission Suitability or Cost; and Cost was significantly less important than Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, combined. The RFP provided for an evaluation of several features of the offerors' proposals under the Management Approach and Resource Application subfactor, including, as relevant here, the offeror's understanding of the award fee process and its application as an effective management tool, and the offeror's ability to recruit and retain a highly competent work force based upon its proposed Total Compensation Plan of salaries and fringe benefits. For the award fee evaluation, offerors were to describe their award fee management approach and rationale, discussing how the proposed fee structure, plus other motivational methods, would be applied as incentives in motivating the offeror's work force.