IT Facilities Services, B-279585, June 29, 1998

B-279585 Jun 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest alleging that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester concerning its proposed staffing level is denied where written discussion questions reasonably apprised protester of the areas of staffing that were deficient. It is clear from protester's responses to discussion questions that it understood the concerns being raised by the agency. 2. ITFS alleges that it was not afforded meaningful discussions and challenges other aspects of the technical and cost evaluations. The RFP performance work statement (PWS) described the specific services to be performed and the contractor was required to provide all supervision. The solicitation requirements were divided into 16 major functional areas (MFA) for evaluation purposes and offerors were required to organize their proposals by MFAs. /3/ The RFP included. View Decision Matter of: IT Facilities Services File: B-279585 Date: June 29, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION IT Facilities Services, a joint venture, /1/ protests the award of a contract to Rust Constructors, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT31-97-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for facilities maintenance support services. ITFS alleges that it was not afforded meaningful discussions and challenges other aspects of the technical and cost evaluations. We deny the protest. As amended, the RFP provided for award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for facilities maintenance support services at Fort Leonard Wood and the Lake of the Ozarks Army Recreation Area for a base period with four option periods. The RFP performance work statement (PWS) described the specific services to be performed and the contractor was required to provide all supervision, labor, equipment, and supplies necessary to perform these services. /2/ RFP Sec. C at 1-179. The solicitation requirements were divided into 16 major functional areas (MFA) for evaluation purposes and offerors were required to organize their proposals by MFAs. /3/ The RFP included, as technical exhibit (TE) 31, historical workload data and related information for labor (excluding supervisor/management categories), material, and equipment costs incurred by the previous contractor during fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996. For fiscal year 1997, copies of that contract with all modifications, and printouts of the data from which the information in TE 31 was derived were made available to all offerors. The RFP advised prospective offerors that it was their responsibility to review all of this data to determine what effect each of these changes would have on the work requirements for this solicitation in relation to the historical workload data shown for the prior contracts. As relevant here, paragraph 2.1 of TE 31 cautioned that: Prospective bidders should be aware that the data shown is labor, material and equipment expenditures incurred and reported by [the previous contractors] IAW [in accordance with] contract specifications and contract modifications in existence at that time. The previous Facilities Maintenance Support Services contract is available for review in the Technical Library and should be used by bidders in the correlation of the data shown and the work requirements of the previous Facilities Maintenance Support Services contract. In addition to the specifications a summary of changes which occurred to the Real Property Inventory during the time frame for which workload data is provided is also available for review as part of the Technical Library. The prospective bidders should also be aware that the specifications in this solicitation differ from the specifications used by the previous [contract]. /4/ [Emphasis added.] The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government, cost and other factors considered. RFP Sec. L at 6. It listed the significant non-cost evaluation factors as: technical/management and staffing; past performance; quality control; small, small disadvantaged and women-owned businesses (SSDWOB) participation; and phase-in and phase-out. RFP Sec. M at 2-3. Cost was to be evaluated, but not scored, on the basis of whether proposed costs were realistic, complete, and reasonable in relation to the RFP requirements. Costs had to be compatible with the technical proposal and adjustments could be made to obtain a most probable cost (MPC) using the results of the cost realism evaluation. /5/ RFP Sec. L at 24, 28 n.5. The Army received proposals from four offerors. Those submitted by ITFS, Rust (the incumbent contractor), and two other offerors (not relevant here) were evaluated by a three-member technical evaluation committee (TEC). /6/ All offerors' proposals were included in the competitive range and written discussions were held using the discussion questions compiled by the evaluation members.