Veda Incorporated, B-278516.2, March 19, 1998

B-278516.2 Mar 19, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Reasonably determined that the proposals were close in technical merit. Who left after the proposal was submitted. Is denied. Where the agency was aware of the individual's unavailability and the offer of this individual had minimal impact on the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection. 3. Protest allegation that the awardee engaged in "bait-and-switch" practices by proposing personnel that the awardee did not intend to use in contract performance is denied. Where no substitution of personnel has been offered and the awardee's unrebutted explanation of its advertisement for qualified personnel in the area in which the contract is to be performed is that the awardee wished to identify a pool of talent for future use but that the awardee intended to use the personnel proposed. 19980319 Attorneys Jerald S. View Decision Matter of: Veda Incorporated File: B-278516.2 Date: March 19, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Veda Incorporated protests the award of a contract to Resource Consultants, Inc. (RCI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-97-R-5030, issued by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Department of the Navy, for support services at the North Island Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), San Diego, California. Veda challenges the Navy's cost realism and source selection decision, and asserts that RCI made material misrepresentations in its proposal concerning its proposed personnel. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award, without discussions, of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering, scientific, technical, logistical, and management support services for a base period with 4 option years. The RFP statement of work (SOW) described the specific services that could be ordered under the contract to support aircraft and aircraft systems. The RFP estimated an annual level-of-effort of 186,450 staff-hours; labor categories and estimated staff-hours per labor category were provided for the performance of the contract. /1/ RFP Sec. B, C at 3-4, 7-8. Some of the labor categories were identified as key personnel labor categories. The RFP provided for award on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff and informed offerors that the technical evaluation factors combined were significantly more important than cost. The following technical evaluation factors and subfactors were identified: 1. Technical approach a. Stress and fatigue analysis b. Readiness analysis c. Operational flight program software (OFPS) d. Integrated maintenance concept plan (IMCP) e. Reliability and maintainability of wiring 2. Personnel qualifications /2/ 3. Past performance 4. Management capability and corporate experience /3/ The technical approach factor was stated to be approximately one and a half times more important than personnel qualifications, two times more important than past performance, and two and a half times more important than management capability/corporate experience. RFP Sec. M at 64-65. Detailed instructions were provided for the preparation of technical and cost proposals. RFP Sec. L at 52-63. Among other things, offerors were informed that resumes must be provided for all key personnel. Resumes were required to indicate relevant experience and to state that the proposed individual was either a current employee or a contingent hire; a letter of intent was required to be submitted for contingent hires. RFP Sec. L at 57-58. In this regard, the RFP contained a "Substitution or Addition of Personnel" clause wherein the contractor agreed to assign to the contract those individuals whose resumes were submitted in the proposal and that no substitution of personnel would be made during the first 90 days of contract performance, except where substitution is necessitated by the individual's sudden illness, death, or termination of employment. RFP Sec. H at 19. The RFP also provided for a cost realism evaluation to verify the offeror's understanding of the contract requirements, to assess the degree to which the cost proposal reflects the approach offered and/or risk that the offeror will provide the services for the proposed costs, and to assess the degree to which the cost proposal accurately represents the work effort reflected in the technical proposal. RFP Sec. M at 66. Offerors were required to provide a detailed breakdown of proposed costs, including labor rates, labor escalation rates, indirect costs, and personnel relocation costs; in computing their proposed labor costs, offerors were directed to use the RFP's estimated labor hours. RFP Sec. L at 60-61. The RFP also warned that relocation costs that were not identified in the cost proposal would be disallowed during contract performance. RFP Sec. L at 62. Proposals were received from Veda /4/ and RCI on April 30, 1997.