Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.;, B-

Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.;, B- BNUMBER: B-278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; B-278695.6 DATE: March 4, 1998 TITLE: Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.;, B- 278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; B-278695.6, March 4, 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:Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.; Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Camber Corp. File: B-278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; B-278695.6 Date:March 4, 1998 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Modern Technologies Corp.; Douglas N. Harty, Esq., for Innovative Technologies Corp.; Norman H. Singer, Esq., Rudnick, Wolfe, Epstien & Zeidman, for Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and Laura J. Mann, Esq., Alan M. Grayson and Associates, for Camber Corp., the protesters. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Eun K. Chung, Esq., and Christina M. Pirrello, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for SEMCOR, Inc.; Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Holland & Knight, for RJO Enterprises, Inc.; and John E. Jensen, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., the intervenors. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Terrance J. Moran, Esq., Scott W. Singer, Esq., William D. Cavanaugh, Esq., Janice C. Beckett, Esq., Alvin Chase, Esq., Deborah Muldoon, Esq., and Jennifer L. Grimm, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST l. Protesters' contentions that agency unreasonably evaluated awardees' and protesters' proposals are denied where the record shows the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protester's contention that its strong performance as the current incumbent should be reflected in the evaluation of its proposal, and that as the incumbent it should receive extra credit in its past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency appropriately evaluated the proposal based on the merits of the proposal itself, and reasonably gave the highest possible past performance rating--but not extra credit--to the protester and to other offerors who had strong past performance references, even though the other offerors had not served as the incumbent for these services. 3. Protester's argument that the agency is required to perform a cost analysis is denied where the agency is awarding a time-and-materials contract and reasonably concludes that the fixed nature of the labor rates indicates the presence of adequate price competition. 4. Agency redetermination of its initial source selection decision in response to an offeror's questions raised after that offeror's debriefing, but prior to the filing of its protest, is entitled to review along with the other contemporaneous evaluation and selection documents. Protester's contention that such a redetermination should be given little weight by our Office and treated as a redetermination prepared in the heat of the adversarial protest is denied. 5. Protest alleging violation of internal agency policy is not for consideration by General Accounting Office as compliance with such policies is a matter for review by the agency. Our bid protest function focuses instead on whether the agency adhered to law and regulation by evaluating proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation. DECISION Modern Technologies Corp. (MTC), Innovative Technologies Corp. (ITC), Information Systems & Networks Corp. (ISN), and Camber Corp. protest their failure to receive one of the five awards made by the Department of the Air Force pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-97-R-0014, issued to procure omnibus support services for the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Instead, the Air Force made award to SEMCOR, Inc.; Dynamics Research Corp. (DRC); RJO Enterprises; H.J. Ford Associates, Inc.; and Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc. (INNOLOG). Each of the four protesters claims that the agency's evaluation of proposals was flawed, and that its proposal should have been selected over the proposals of other offerors.