Technical & Administrative Services Corporation, B-279828,

B-279828 Jul 24, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that proposals were misevaluated is denied where record reflects merely that protester disagrees with evaluators' findings. 2. Allegation that discussions were inadequate is denied where protester's only adverse rating was addressed by a specific and appropriate discussion question. 3. Transition costs were not required to be included as part of price evaluation where solicitation did not call for consideration of such costs. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on November 28. Technical proposals were to be initially evaluated to ensure that they satisfied the agency's baseline requirements as set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). Acceptable proposals were then to be evaluated against three factors in order to determine whether. View Decision Matter of: Technical & Administrative Services Corporation File: B-279828 Date: July 24, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Technical & Administrative Services Corporation (TADCORPS) protests the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to RGI, Inc. under request for offers (RFO) No. RFOW-15635-JFK, issued as a small business set-aside by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for training logistics services to support the agency's headquarters Training and Development Division (Code FT). /1/ TADCORPS principally alleges that NASA misevaluated the proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on November 28, 1997. Technical proposals were to be initially evaluated to ensure that they satisfied the agency's baseline requirements as set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). Acceptable proposals were then to be evaluated against three factors in order to determine whether, and how much, value was to be added to the rating of the proposal. The value factors were: (1) relevant demonstrated experience and positive past performance in providing training logistics support; (2) direct experience and related higher education of proposed staff as well as capabilities in utilizing software packages currently used by Code FT and other industry standard software packages; and (3) the offering of improved response times, offices with proximity to Code FT, streamlined work processes, superior interfacing with various organizations, management flexibility and the elimination or minimization of rework. Award was to be made on a best value basis assessing the best combination of qualitative merit and price. Five offers were received, one of which was immediately rejected for reasons not relevant here. The other four were priced as follows: Offeror A $2.676 million RGI $1.827 million TADCORPS $5.362 million Offeror B $8.000 million The proposals of RGI and Offeror B were evaluated as having the highest technical merit. TADCORPS's proposal was rated third and Offeror A's last. All four were considered to have satisfied the agency's baseline requirements and were included in the competitive range. Oral and written discussions were held and four revised final offers were requested and received. Final prices were as follows: Offeror A $2.409 million RGI $3.593 million TADCORPS $3.979 million Offeror B $6.724 million Although Offeror A submitted the low-priced proposal, that proposal was eliminated because it was found to have offered the least added value. Offeror B's proposal was found to have offered the most added value, but was eliminated because of its high price. In comparing the two remaining proposals, with respect to value factor 1 (corporate experience and past performance), RGI's proposal and TADCORPS's were found to be equivalent in terms of added value. With respect to value factor 2 (staff experience and education as well as software capability), RGI's proposal was found to have added more value than TADCORPS's. With respect to value factor 3 (improved response time, etc.), RGI's proposal was found to have added significantly more value than TADCORPS's. Based on these assessments, as well as the price differential, award was made to RGI. This protest followed. PROTEST AND ANALYSIS TADCORPS protests the comparative evaluation of its proposal and the awardee's under value factor 2 with respect to staffing and competency with multiple software packages and under value factor 3 with respect to improved response time. TADCORPS maintains that the evaluations, as well as discussions, were unequal and, in the case of RGI's proposal evaluation, that the record does not support NASA's conclusions. TADCORPS also argues that the agency failed to properly consider the dramatic increase in RGI's final price and the fact that the awardee's proposal did not include transition costs. It is not the function of this Office to independently evaluate proposals.