BE, Inc.; PAI Corporation, B-277978; B-277978.2, December 16,

BE, Inc.; PAI Corporation, B-277978; B-277978.2, December 16, BNUMBER: B-277978; B-277978.2 DATE: December 16, 1997 TITLE: BE, Inc.; PAI Corporation, B-277978; B-277978.2, December 16, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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:BE, Inc.; PAI Corporation File: B-277978; B-277978.2 Date:December 16, 1997 George Townes for BE, Inc., and Kurt M. Rylander, Esq., and Kenneth Martin, Esq., Martin & Rylander, Esq., for PAI Corporation, the protesters. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Stephanie P. Gilson, Esq., and Lisanne E. Sanborn, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for Systematic Management Services, Inc., an intervenor. Gena Cadieux, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. David Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably determined that awardee's proposed labor rates were realistic is denied where agency determination was supported by (1) a comparison of the awardee's rates to those of the other offerors and to wage survey information furnished by offerors, and (2) the fact that all of the awardee's proposed key employees were currently employed and proposal included evidence of ability to retain staff. 2. Protest that questions posed by agency at oral presentations constituted discussions such that the agency was required to advise offerors of weaknesses in their offers and request best and final offers is without merit where the information solicited was not substantial, but merely clarified information already presented in proposal; information was not necessary to find proposal acceptable; and no proposal revision opportunity was provided. DECISION BE, Inc. (BEI) and PAI Corporation protest the Department of Energy's (DOE) award of a contract to Systematic Management Services, Inc. (SMS), under request for proposals No. DE-RP04-97AL76614, for technical support services. BEI and PAI challenge DOE's cost/price evaluation and cost/technical tradeoff decision; PAI challenges DOE's determination not to request best and final offers (BAFO). The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity task order contract, for a base year with 4 option years, to a small business to furnish technical support services in support of DOE's nuclear weapons activities. Offerors were required to submit ceiling labor rates for 38 categories--6 key and 32 other--of personnel, each with its own specified minimum educational and experience qualifications. Although the solicitation required offerors to submit written cost/price proposals, resumes for key personnel, employment letters of intent for key personnel and written past performance information, it required offerors to make oral presentations in lieu of written technical/management proposals. Offerors were cautioned to be "fully responsive" in their written proposals and oral presentations since "DOE intends to make a selection and award a contract based on the initial written proposal and the oral presentation." (DOE elsewhere in the solicitation reserved the right to conduct written or oral discussions with offerors.) Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was "most advantageous (best value)" under the following three criteria (listed in descending order of importance): (1) technical/management; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Cost/price was to be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and completeness. The solicitation provided that "Technical/Management and Past Performance are of greater importance than Cost/Price. Cost/Price may become increasingly more important, or even the determining factor, when two or more competing offerors are considered to be substantially equal." Ten proposals--including BEI's, PAI's, and SMS'--were received by the closing time. Following oral presentations to the agency, DOE determined that SMS' offer was most advantageous. SMS' evaluation score (89.2 of 100 possible points/very good) under the technical/management and past performance factors was slightly higher than PAI's (88.9/very good), and SMS' cost/price ($[DELETED]) was [DELETED] lower than PAI's ($[DELETED]). Although BEI's proposal received a higher score and adjectival rating (93.8/excellent) under the technical/management and past performance factors than SMS', its cost/price ($[DELETED]) was [DELETED] higher, and DOE determined that the higher rating of BEI's proposal did not warrant its approximately [DELETED] percent higher cost/price.