Nations, Inc., B-280048, August 24, 1998

B-280048 Aug 24, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the deficiencies ascribed to the proposal were either the result of misevaluation. Was for the award of a fixed-price-award-fee. One of which the protester is currently performing. Unless the contracting officer later determined that discussions were necessary. The technical/management factor was most important. The past performance and price/administrative factors were "comparatively equal" to each other. The technical/management evaluation was to gauge the offeror's understanding of the requirements. Offerors were asked to provide a staffing matrix showing the number of personnel proposed by labor category. The RFP did not specify any labor categories that the offeror was required to propose. View Decision Matter of: Nations, Inc. File: B-280048 Date: August 24, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Nations, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-97-R-0011, issued by the Department of the Navy, for life cycle contractor support of command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) devices located at 45 military installations worldwide. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued May 9, 1997, was for the award of a fixed-price-award-fee, indefinite-quantity contract with some time-and-materials contract line items (CLIN). RFP Amendment 03 Secs. B, L.2. The RFP consolidates the requirements of three contracts, one of which the protester is currently performing. The solicitation advised, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-16, Alternate II (June 1997), that the government intended to award a contract based on initial proposals, unless the contracting officer later determined that discussions were necessary. RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.1. The solicitation provided for award based on a price/technical tradeoff considering three evaluation factors: (1) price/administrative, (2) technical/management, and (3) past performance. Id. The technical/management factor was most important, and the past performance and price/administrative factors were "comparatively equal" to each other. RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.3. The solicitation advised that proposals would be evaluated in accordance with a source selection plan (SSP). RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.1. The SSP established adjectival ratings ("outstanding," "highly satisfactory," "satisfactory," "marginal," and "unsatisfactory") and risk assessment ratings ("high," "medium," and "low") for the technical/management evaluation. The technical/management evaluation was to gauge the offeror's understanding of the requirements, its technical approach, and its ability to execute that technical approach. RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.3(b)(1), (2). The technical/management factor included a technical subfactor and a less important management subfactor, RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.3(b), with the following sub-subfactors: Technical 1. Staffing 2. Organization 3. Types and Qualifications of Personnel Management 1. Phase In Plan 2. Personnel Management 3. Time and Material Management 4. Configuration Management Plan For the staffing sub-subfactor evaluation, offerors were asked to provide a staffing matrix showing the number of personnel proposed by labor category, site, and C4I device, along with the plans, assumptions, and rationale supporting the proposed staffing approach. RFP Amendment 03 Sec. L.18(c)(1)(ii). To assist offerors in developing their staffing approaches, the RFP statement of work (SOW) provided workload information, including equipment inventories by site, the normal operating hours at each site, and the required response times for addressing various C4I device failures. SOW Amendment 05 Secs. 3.3.1, 3.8.3.1.1, 3.8.3.2, 3.8.3.2.1, 3.8.3.3, and SOW Amendment 03, Appendices A to P. However, the RFP did not disclose a government staffing estimate. In addition, the RFP did not specify any labor categories that the offeror was required to propose; rather, offerors had discretion to propose labor categories appropriate to their technical approaches and were not precluded from proposing categories exempt from the Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA), as amended, 41 U.S.C. Secs. 351-358 (1994), which applied to the procurement. /1/ RFP Amendment 03 Sec. H.2; RFP Amendment 01, Response to Question 36. Whether the offeror's proposed labor categories comprised a "quality workforce with the proper mix of skills" was a consideration under the types and qualifications of personnel sub-subfactor of the technical subfactor. RFP Amendment 03 Sec. M.3(b)(1)(iii). Five firms, including Nations, submitted proposals, and the contracting officer ultimately established a competitive range of the proposals submitted by Hughes Technical Services Company and Pulau Electronics Corporation.