Rothe Development, Inc., B-279839, July 27, 1998

B-279839 Jul 27, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency did not improperly disclose information proprietary to the protester regarding the number of individuals employed by the protester for the performance of the predecessor contract where the information disclosed cannot reasonably be considered proprietary and the protester's claim that it was competitively disadvantaged by the release of the information is speculative at best. Alleges that it was placed at a competitive disadvantage because the agency disclosed certain information which allegedly is proprietary to Rothe. The contractor will be required to provide all personnel. Experience will be evaluated.". A preproposal conference was held. "How many personnel are currently working at the NCC?". View Decision Matter of: Rothe Development, Inc. File: B-279839 Date: July 27, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rothe Development, Inc. protests the award of a contract to any other offeror under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34608-98-R-0016, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for operation and maintenance services for the base telecommunications system (BTS) and network control center (NCC) at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi. Rothe, the incumbent contractor for a portion of the services, alleges that it was placed at a competitive disadvantage because the agency disclosed certain information which allegedly is proprietary to Rothe. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 6, 1998, provides for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The contractor will be required to provide all personnel, equipment, parts, materials, tools, operation and maintenance documentation, and other items and services necessary to perform operations and maintenance of the BTS and NCC. RFP Sec. C 1.1.1. The RFP lists company organization, quality, and safety as the technical evaluation factors, and includes evaluation subfactors under each of these evaluation factors. RFP Sec. M-800 B. With regard to the company organization evaluation factor, the RFP lists eight evaluation subfactors, including personnel. Id. The RFP states that, under the personnel subfactor, the "availability of sufficient personnel with the required skills, training, and experience will be evaluated." Id. A preproposal conference was held, during which a potential offeror asked, "How many personnel are currently working at the NCC?" The Air Force explains that, in order to answer this question, the quality assurance evaluator (QAE) for the predecessor contract, who has a close working relationship with the Rothe employees performing the contract, "mentally went through each office and listed the names of the persons in the offices." Agency Memorandum of Law at 2. According to the Air Force, the QAE found "that Rothe had 23 people working the contract with approximately 15 performing the NCC work." Id. The agency subsequently issued 71 questions and answers (Q&A) regarding the RFP to potential offerors, with Q&A number 24 reading as follows: 24. How many personnel are currently working at the NCC? The contractor currently has 23 people working the NCC - however, only approx 15 of them are performing the work defined under this contract. Please note that individual personnel may be cross-trained and performing more than one function. Rothe asserts that the agency's answer to question 24 improperly disclosed Rothe's "proprietary privileged and confidential manning criteria related to the solicitation . . . and destroyed its competitive position for the solicitation." Protest at 3. Rothe contends that, contrary to the agency's assertions, the number of Rothe personnel currently performing the contract could only have come from the technical proposal submitted by Rothe for the predecessor contract, and points out that this proposal contained language to preserve the confidentiality of the information contained therein. Rothe requests that the RFP be canceled, and its current contract extended through December 1999 with 4 option years and modified to include the additional work required under the RFP. In the alternative, Rothe requests that it be awarded a contract for the services on a sole-source basis, or that the RFP be amended to delete the evaluation preference for small, disadvantaged businesses or issued as a total small business set-aside. We have recognized the right of a firm to protect its proprietary data from improper exposure in a solicitation in the context of a bid protest. The Source, B-266362, Feb. 7, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 48 at 2; Ingersoll-Rand Co., B-236391, Dec. 5, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 517 at 2. As a general rule, proprietary information is that which is marked proprietary or otherwise submitted in confidence to the government. Good Food Serv., Inc., B-260728, June 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 123 at 2.