Telos Corporation, B-279493.3, July 27, 1998

B-279493.3 Jul 27, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency was not required to discuss with the protester its higher cost since such cost was consistent with the firm's approach of paying higher direct labor rates to retain the incumbent personnel. The protester's substantially higher cost was a reasonable basis to exclude the firm's proposal from the competitive range. Required the proposed PBX engineer to have the following experience: a minimum of ten (10) years experience in installation. Shall have a minimum total of five (5) years experience in working with and managing military communication networks including system integration services and encryption applications. The RFP provided that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Telos Corporation File: B-279493.3 Date: July 27, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Telos Corporation protests the award of a contract to ITT Federal Services International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-97-R-1971, issued by the Department of the Navy for operation, maintenance, technical, and engineering support services for the Kuwait Air Force Communications Network. Telos challenges the agency's evaluation of ITT's cost proposal, the agency's conduct of discussions, and the agency's exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. /1/ The RFP contemplated the award of a level-of-effort, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the base period and three 1-year option periods. Section C.1.4 of the RFP's performance work statement addressed personnel qualifications. The RFP required offerors to submit one resume for each of the four key personnel positions (senior project manager, installation supervisor, lead field engineer, and PBX engineer) which demonstrated that the individual proposed for a particular key position satisfied the minimum experience requirements described in the RFP. For example, as relevant to these protests, the RFP, as amended on page 2 of amendment No. 0001, required the proposed PBX engineer to have the following experience: a minimum of ten (10) years experience in installation, test, and maintenance activities of communication systems and equipment, including a minimum total of five (5) years experience on PBX installation and maintenance. Within the past seven (7) years, shall have a minimum total of five (5) years experience in working with and managing military communication networks including system integration services and encryption applications. The RFP also listed minimum experience requirements for support personnel positions (project management specialist, communication technician, and communication technician assistants), but did not require offerors to submit resumes for these non-key positions. The RFP provided that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, with an offeror's technical proposal being considered more important than the offeror's cost proposal. The RFP contained the following technical evaluation factors: (1) technical approach; (2) personnel resources; (3) management approach; (4) corporate experience; and (5) past performance. (These factors were listed in descending order of importance, except that factors 4 and 5 were of equal importance.) Key personnel resumes were evaluated under technical evaluation factor 2. The RFP stated that if an offeror's proposal was determined unacceptable for any of the technical evaluation factors, the proposal might not be considered for award. With respect to an offeror's proposed costs, the RFP stated that these would be evaluated for realism in terms of demonstrating the offeror's ability to project costs which were realistic and reasonable and indicating that the offeror understood the nature and scope of work to be performed. The RFP further stated that the realism of personnel compensation would be evaluated. Three firms, including ITT and Telos, /2/ submitted initial technical and cost proposals by the stated closing time. As relevant to this protest, the proposals of ITT and Telos were rated technically "unacceptable (a)" because, among other reasons, the firms failed to provide sufficient detail demonstrating that the individuals proposed for key personnel positions satisfied the RFP's minimum experience requirements. According to the agency's source selection plan, an unacceptable (a) technical rating meant that the firm's proposal satisfied most of the RFP requirements; that there was some risk; that proposal deficiencies were considered correctable; and that the proposal could be made acceptable through discussions without extensive changes tantamount to the submission of an entirely new proposal.