Coleman Research Corporation, B-278793, March 16, 1998

B-278793 Mar 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Under solicitation which provided that cost was significantly less important than technical considerations. Award to offeror with superior technical proposal and slightly higher most probable cost is unobjectionable where source selection authority reasonably determines that the lower cost associated with protester's proposal does not outweigh the technical superiority of awardee's proposal. The solicitation is for the acquisition of systems. The successful contractor will provide cost analysis support services. The effort is to be performed primarily at the contractor's facility. One of which was to be under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. /1/ Evaluation of proposals was based on three factors. View Decision Matter of: Coleman Research Corporation File: B-278793 Date: March 16, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Coleman Research Corporation protests the award of a contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-97-R-0172, issued by the Department of the Army for support services concerning weapon systems effectiveness analysis. Coleman challenges the propriety of the agency's upward adjustment of Coleman's most probable cost and the soundness of the agency's cost/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The solicitation is for the acquisition of systems, cost, risk, and program evaluation support (SCRAPES) for the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Command Analysis Directorate. The successful contractor will provide cost analysis support services, program evaluation and analysis services, risk assessment and analysis services, program management support services, and system analysis and operations research support services. The effort is to be performed primarily at the contractor's facility, with some work to be performed at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, as specified in individual technical direction orders. The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base effort in the first year with options over an additional 4 years. Up to three awards could be made, one of which was to be under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. /1/ Evaluation of proposals was based on three factors, in descending order of importance: requirements, past performance, and most probable cost (MPC). Under the evaluation scheme, the "requirements" factor was significantly more important than "past performance." "Cost" was considered equal to "past performance," and the sum of these two factors was less important than "requirements." Proposal risk was also considered integral to the "requirements" and "cost" evaluation areas. Before any proposal could be evaluated under these factors, the proposal had to pass a "go/no go" evaluation regarding whether the proposed personnel were able to meet minimum labor qualifications. Section M of the RFP provided for an evaluation of MPC, defined as the government's estimate of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror's requirements approach, adjusted by any additional cost to the government. Section M also provided: The Offeror's proposed rates, factors and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utiliz[e] in proposals if no negotiated forward pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates and projected expense pools. The rates and factors proposed shall be applied to the mix of labor hours and skill mix, ODC's [other direct costs] and travel costs . . . for both the base contract and all options. Section L, "Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors," advised offerors that indirect expense rates "shall be supported by projected expense pools and cost recovery bases by contractor fiscal year." The instructions stated that there was no page limitation for the cost volume. Award was to be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represented the best overall value to the government. The RFP provided that the government intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions; therefore, offerors' initial proposals should contain their best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Amendment No. 0004 of the RFP specifically reminded offerors of this, warning that they must ensure that their proposals were complete and accurate in all respects. Five offerors, including Coleman (the incumbent) and SAIC, submitted proposals by the August 26, 1997, closing date.