Department of Transportation; Computer Sciences Corpor, B-

Department of Transportation; Computer Sciences Corpor, B- BNUMBER: B-278466.2; B-278466.3 DATE: May 11, 1998 TITLE: Department of Transportation; Computer Sciences Corpor, B- 278466.2; B-278466.3, May 11, 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:Department of Transportation; Computer Sciences Corporation--Reconsideration and Modification of Remedy File: B-278466.2; B-278466.3 Date:May 11, 1998 Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Alison J. Micheli, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Hughes STX Corporation, the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, and Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., for Computer Sciences Corporation, an intervenor. Lee Wolanin, Esq., John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Department of Transportation, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Requests for reconsideration are denied where the agency and the intervenor in essence repeat arguments made previously and express disagreement with our prior decision, but fail to show that the decision may have contained either errors of fact or law warranting reversal or modification of that decision. 2. Recommendation for corrective action is modified where the reopening of discussions and the reevaluation of proposals, with the possibility that the awardee's contract may have to be terminated for the convenience of the government, is not in the best interests of the government because of the impact a termination would have on the agency's mission. DECISION The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) request reconsideration of our decision sustaining the protest filed by Hughes STX Corporation in Hughes STX Corp., B-278466, Feb. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 52. Hughes successfully challenged the award of a contract to CSC for on-site information systems support under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRS57-97-R-00001, issued by DOT's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. In the alternative and at a minimum, DOT and CSC request that we modify our recommendation for corrective action. We deny the requests for reconsideration and modify our recommendation for corrective action. In sustaining the Hughes protest against the award to CSC, we concluded that the agency's cost realism evaluation was unreasonable and discussions conducted with Hughes concerning its proposed direct labor rates were not meaningful. We recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals for cost realism and then reopen discussions and request another best and final offer (BAFO) from, at a minimum, Hughes and CSC. We stated that if an offeror other than CSC is selected for award as a result of the agency's reevaluation, the agency should terminate CSC's contract for the convenience of the government.[1] REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION In requesting reconsideration, DOT and CSC in essence repeat arguments made previously and express disagreement with our prior decision. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, however, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.14(a). DOT's and CSC's repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and their disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 274 at 2. For example, DOT and CSC disagree with our conclusion that in determining what offerors would need to pay in direct labor rates in order to retain a large percentage of incumbent personnel--the agency's primary concern--the agency "mechanically compared" the Hughes and CSC proposed labor rates to the incumbent's historical labor rates, thereby "substantially overstat[ing]" the lack of realism in the Hughes proposed labor rates. Hughes STX Corp., supra, at 8. As discussed in the decision, the agency did not meaningfully consider the realism of the labor rates proposed by Hughes. The agency failed to explain in the contemporaneous evaluation record or during the hearing conducted by our Office in connection with the protest why the rates proposed by Hughes, which were approximately [deleted] percent below historical rates, were deemed unrealistic, while the rates proposed by CSC, which were approximately [deleted] percent below historical rates, were deemed realistic.