Joint Threat Services, B-278168; B-278168.2, January 5, 1998

Joint Threat Services, B-278168; B-278168.2, January 5, 1998 BNUMBER: B-278168; B-278168.2 DATE: January 5, 1998 TITLE: Joint Threat Services, B-278168; B-278168.2, 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:Joint Threat Services File: B-278168; B-278168.2 Date:January 5, 1998 Stuart Young, Esq., DynCorp, for the protester. William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., and Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP, for Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., an intervenor. Craig E. Hodge, Esq., and Phillip A. Weaver, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christine F. Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably downgraded the protester's management proposal and made an upward adjustment in determining the proposal's most probable cost, where the proposal did not demonstrate the protester's ability to perform the agency's requirements based upon a significantly reduced staff during the contract option years, during which the agency does not anticipate any significant reduction in its requirements. 2. Agency was not required to discuss the protester's proposal to augment its staff with personnel from another contract, where the agency reasonably did not view this weakness as material until the protester proposed a significant staffing reduction in its best and final offer and increased its reliance upon this other contract's personnel to supplement its staff. 3. The excellent rating accorded to the awardee's best and final offer did not improperly reflect the application of an unstated evaluation factor and was reasonably based upon numerous, uncontested proposal strengths, notwithstanding that the awardee's staffing levels were lower than the government estimate. 4. Agency properly allowed the awardee to correct a clerical error in a cost proposal spreadsheet after the submission of best and final offers through clarifications, rather than discussions, where the existence of the mistake, and the amount actually intended, were clear from the face of the proposal, and the correction did not prejudice the interests of another offeror. DECISION Joint Threat Services (JTS), a joint venture,[1] protests an award to Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc. (RAM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DATM01-95-R-0020, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Operational Test and Evaluation Command Contracting Activity (OPTEC), for test support services for OPTEC's Threat Support Activity (OTSA). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued August 16, 1996, required the contractor to maintain current threat systems equipment and to support operational testing of the equipment, which encompassed transporting the equipment to the test site and operating and maintaining it until the test's completion. To this end, the RFP called for an array of support services, including engineering and technical services, hardware and software maintenance services, flight and aviation support services, logistics and supply support services, and threat analysis and intelligence support services. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with 4 option years on a best value basis. The RFP sought separate proposals corresponding to four evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, management, past performance, and cost (including options). The RFP stated six technical subfactors of varying importance and four management subfactors of equal importance, as follows: Technical 1. Base Support 2. Threat Systems Support 3. Engineering and Technical Support 4. Training Support 5. Test Support 6. Threat Analysis and Intelligence Support Management 1. Management Approach 2. Resource Allocation 3. Project Experience, Expertise and Personnel 4. Logistics Each technical and management subfactor contained two or more sub-subfactors. Proposals were to be evaluated under the technical and management factors with both numerical scores and adjectival ratings. Proposed staffing was a component of both the technical and management evaluation. Each technical subfactor provided for an evaluation of the offeror's understanding of the work to be performed, which encompassed consideration of the offeror's proposed staffing, and a few sub-subfactors were geared toward specific staffing concerns, such as the adequacy of the offeror's proposed engineering staff and mix.