Source One Management, Inc., B-278044.4; B-278044.6, June 12,

Source One Management, Inc., B-278044.4; B-278044.6, June 12, BNUMBER: B-278044.4; B-278044.6 DATE: June 12, 1998 TITLE: Source One Management, Inc., B-278044.4; B-278044.6, June 12, 1998 ********************************************************************** 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:Source One Management, Inc. File: B-278044.4; B-278044.6 Date:June 12, 1998 Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., and Margaret C. Rhodes, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., for the protester. William W. Goodrich, Jr., Esq., Matthew S. Perlman, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq., Alison Micheli, Esq., and Tenley A. Carp., Esq., Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, for Advanced Integrated Management Services, Inc., an intervenor. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and John D. Bremer, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Paul Jordan, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's proposal was reasonable where it was performed in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and reflected valid criticisms of protester's proposed subcontract management and past performance. 2. Where offeror proposed certain employees' wage rates less than comparable Service Contract Act and general schedule wages, without fully supporting feasibility of that approach, agency properly assessed a weakness under evaluation criterion concerning offerors' projected success in obtaining and retaining a highly skilled workforce. DECISION Source One Management, Inc. (SOM) protests the award of a contract to Advanced Integrated Management Services, Inc., (AIMSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP65-97WA14007, issued by the Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy (DOE) for technical support services. SOM challenges the agency's technical evaluation of AIMSI's and SOM's proposals and the cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The purpose of this procurement is to provide technical support services for DOE's Corporate Services Office (CSO) in Golden, Colorado. The technical support services to be acquired include realty management (Task A); power system training and video production (Task B); engineering support (Task C); three information services support tasks: CSO support (Task D1), Corporate Applications Support (Task D2), and Financial Management System Transition support (Task D3); and project management (Task E). The procurement consolidates four existing support services contracts and aligns them with changes in DOE's organization that have occurred in the past 3 years. The solicitation was issued as a total small business set-aside and contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with 4 option years. Section L of the RFP advised offerors that their proposals would consist of an oral presentation of delineated technical information, supplemented by written documentation. According to section M of the RFP, technical proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three technical criteria: project management (50 percent), past performance (25 percent), and understanding and approach (25 percent). The project management criterion was divided into four subcriteria: projected degree of success of phase-in and start-up staffing plans, including subcontractors (20 percent); appropriateness and projected degree of success of personnel management programs to ensure a highly skilled workforce and retention of contract staff, including subcontractors (15 percent); anticipated effectiveness of management approach (10 percent); and anticipated effectiveness of proposed on-site organization structure (5 percent). Additional evaluation credit was available under the first and third subcriteria to offerors that proposed to subcontract with small disadvantaged businesses participating in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. Cost, while not scored, was used in determining the offeror's understanding of the requirements, in assessing the validity of the offeror's approach to managing and performing the work, and in determining the best overall value to the government. The RFP advised that the proposed cost estimate would not be controlling and that the government's estimate of the most probable cost (MPC) would be used for evaluation purposes.