Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23, 1997

Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23, 1997 TITLE: Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23, 1997 BNUMBER: B-278074; B-278074.2 DATE: December 23, 1997 ********************************************************************** Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc, B-278074; B-278074.2, December 23, 1997 Decision Matter of: Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc File: B-278074; B-278074.2 Date: December 23, 1997 Victor Zupa, Esq., Neville Shaver Hubbard & McLean, for the protester. Lori S. Chofnas, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's competing proposals for instructional services under the management evaluation factor with regard to their respective approaches to the scheduling of daily training is denied, where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the protester's scheduling approach was unacceptable and that the awardee's well-documented scheduling approach was acceptable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's evaluation unreasonable. DECISION Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. (MES), a small, disadvantaged business concern (SDB), protests the award of a contract to Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-97-R-1850, issued by the Department of the Navy, for instructional services. MES contends that the agency's evaluation of its and Lockheed's proposals, as well as the selection of Lockheed's proposal for award, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, with fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line items, for a base with 4 option years. The successful contractor under the RFP will be required to schedule and provide flight simulator, classroom, and interactive courseware (ICW) instructional services at five naval air stations located in Texas, Florida, and Mississippi. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government, price/cost and other factors considered, with technical merit being considered more important than price/cost. The solicitation listed the following evaluation factors: Management Plan Instructional Services Approach Personnel Resources Quality Control Plan Corporate Experience Past Performance The RFP informed offerors that the evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, except that the corporate experience and past performance factors were equal in importance. The RFP included the standard "Notice of Evaluation Preference for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns," set forth at Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement sect. 252.219-7006, which provides that offers will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the evaluated cost/price of all offers except those received from SDBs. The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that offerors organize their technical proposals into six volumes, with each volume addressing one of the six technical evaluation factors. The agency received six proposals, including those of MES and Lockheed (the incumbent contractor) by the RFP's closing date. Lockheed's proposal was rated as "acceptable" overall, and the other proposals, including MES', were rated as "unacceptable" overall with the capacity of being made acceptable as a result of discussions.1 [1] The agency included all six proposals in the competitive range. Discussions were held, and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, received, and evaluated.2 [2] The agency evaluated MES' BAFO as "unacceptable" under the management approach evaluation factor; "acceptable" under the instructional services, quality control, corporate experience, and past performance evaluation factors; "highly acceptable" under the personnel evaluation factor; and "unacceptable" overall, at a proposed cost/price of $72,122,003. The agency evaluated Lockheed's proposal as "acceptable" under the management approach, instructional services, and past performance evaluation factors; "highly acceptable" under the personnel, quality control, and corporate experience evaluation factors; and "acceptable" overall. Lockheed's proposed total cost/price of $74,779,014 was evaluated at $82,256,915 because of the application of the SDB evaluation preference.