International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge,,

International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge,, BNUMBER: B-278165; B-278165.2 DATE: January 5, 1998 TITLE: International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge,, B-278165; B-278165.2, January 5, 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:International Consultants, Inc.; International Trade Bridge, Inc. File: B-278165; B-278165.2 Date:January 5, 1998 Douglas N. Harty, Esq., for International Consultants, Inc., and Carlos M. Caldas for International Trade Bridge, Inc., the protesters. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Award of a contract on the basis of awardee's higher-priced, technically superior proposal is unobjectionable where the evaluation is supported by the record and is consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably determined that the difference in technical merit among the proposals justified the cost difference. DECISION International Consultants, Inc. (ICI) and International Trade Bridge, Inc. (ITB) protest the award of a time-and-materials contract to Integrated Information Technology Corporation (IITC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33601-96-R-9007, issued by the Department of the Air Force as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for hazardous material, hazardous waste, and pollution prevention program management services, as well as technical support, at the Materials Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. ICI and ITB contend that the award was improper because the agency's technical and past performance evaluations were flawed; the agency was biased in favor of IITC, since that firm's proposed subcontractor was the incumbent contractor of the required services; and the agency did not make a proper best value determination.[1] We deny the protests. The RFP provided for award of a contract for a base year plus 4 option years to the responsible offeror whose offer was found most advantageous to the government considering, in descending order of importance, the following specific evaluation criteria: technical (consisting of sample test plans in the areas of hazardous waste management, hazardous material management, and pollution prevention program management); management/support (including management, security, personnel, and database maintenance/support); and cost/price. RFP sec. M-551. A color/adjectival rating (relating to how well the proposal meets the solicitation requirements and evaluation standards) and a proposal risk rating (relating to the risk associated with the offeror's proposed approach) were to be assigned to each proposal under each evaluation subfactor. RFP sec. M-551(F). Additionally, a performance risk assessment was to be made under each of the three evaluation factors based on the offeror's past performance. Id. The RFP stated that, within each evaluation factor, performance risk would be considered equal to proposal risk and the color/adjectival rating in making an integrated source selection decision. Id. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP and discussions were held with the four offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range. Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted and evaluated. IITC's BAFO (at $11,206,603) was rated highest technically, with four blue (exceptional) ratings and three green (acceptable) ratings in the subfactor areas, and it was assigned low performance and proposal risk ratings. ICI's BAFO (at $[DELETED]) received one blue rating and six green ratings, and it was assigned low performance and proposal risk ratings. ITB's BAFO (at $[DELETED]) received one blue rating and six green ratings; it was assigned low performance risk ratings in all three categories, low proposal risk ratings in five of the seven subfactor areas, and moderate proposal risk ratings in the remaining two subfactor areas. The source selection authority determined that the technical superiority of IITC's proposal warranted the cost premium involved, and thus that that proposal offered the best value to the government. The agency awarded a contract to IITC on September 3. Following detailed debriefings held with the firms, ICI and ITB filed the current protests with our Office challenging certain aspects of the agency's evaluation of the IITC proposal, and the award to that firm at a higher price than their own.