Pulau Electronics Corporation--Costs, B-280048.11, July 31, 2000

B-280048.11 Jul 31, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights There is no per se rule regarding the maximum number of hours or the maximum number of attorneys. Provided that the work is properly documented. Even though this was an area of significant concern to the initial TET. Underlying many of these issues was Pulau's contention that the agency improperly evaluated proposals without the benefit of the initial TET. Included were the initial and revised proposals. We determined that a hearing was not necessary. We canceled it 2 days before it was to be held. Terminate AAI's contract if it was not the successful offeror after the reevaluation. /3/ We also recommended that the Navy reimburse Pulau the costs of filing and pursuing its protests. Which was issued as a protected document. View Decision Matter of: Pulau Electronics Corporation--Costs File: B-280048.11 Date: July 31, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pulau Electronics Corporation requests that we determine the amount it should recover from the Department of the Navy for the costs of filing and pursuing its bid protests of an award to AAI/Engineering Support, Inc. in Pulau Elecs. Corp., B-280048.4 et. al., May 19, 1999, 99-2 CPD Para. 99. We recommend that the Navy reimburse Pulau $226,753.46 for the costs of filing and pursuing its bid protests plus $12,715.62 for the costs of filing and pursuing this claim for protest costs before our Office. On May 9, 1997, the Navy issued request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-97-R-0011 for life cycle contractor support of command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) devices located at designated military installations worldwide. The Navy received five proposals, included two in the competitive range (the proposals of Pulau and another firm), and rejected the rest as technically unacceptable (the proposals of AAI, Nations, Inc., and another firm). Nations protested the competitive range determination to our Office. We sustained the protest and recommended that the Navy establish a new competitive range and conduct discussions as appropriate. Nations, Inc., B-280048, Aug. 24, 1998, 99-2 CPD Para. 94 at 10. Following our decision, the contracting officer decided to include all five proposals in the competitive range. The contracting officer appointed a new technical evaluation team (TET), which included none of the individual evaluators from the initial TET, to prepare discussion questions and evaluate revised proposals. The initial TET had deemed AAI's staffing proposal unacceptable. Among other staffing concerns, the initial TET expressed doubt that AAI had proposed enough staff to support a major category of C4I devices, the Family of Simulation (FAMSIM) devices. During discussions, the agency questioned AAI about its staffing level for FAMSIM maintenance, but not about its staffing level for FAMSIM operations, even though this was an area of significant concern to the initial TET. As a result, AAI only corrected its maintenance staffing approach during discussions, not its operational staffing level and approach. During the reevaluation and the award selection, the agency mistakenly relied upon AAI's revised maintenance staffing approach as resolving the various staffing concerns raised by the initial TET, and never considered whether AAI's uncorrected operator staffing shortfall--which alone accounted for AAI's decisive price advantage--would adversely impair the awardee's ability to meet the agency's requirements. The Navy thus made award based on AAI's lowest-priced proposal following a price/technical tradeoff. Both Pulau and Nations protested the award, and our Office granted the Navy's request to consolidate the protests. We issued a consolidated protective order and admitted, without objection, six attorneys and two consultants on behalf of Pulau, two attorneys on behalf of Nations, and one attorney on behalf of the intervenor, AAI. Three attorneys represented the Navy during the protests. Pulau filed three protests before the Navy submitted its report, based upon information from its debriefing, through its collaboration with Nations, and from the Navy's successful request for summary dismissal of Nations' protest. /1/ Each of Pulau's protests raised multiple allegations, which, taken together, challenged the staffing and price realism evaluation of AAI's proposal, the technical evaluation of Pulau's proposal, the degree to which the Navy evaluated Pulau's proposal equally to other offerors' proposals, and the degree to which the Navy used an undisclosed low-priced, technically acceptable award basis in lieu of a reasonably based price/technical tradeoff, as required by the RFP. Underlying many of these issues was Pulau's contention that the agency improperly evaluated proposals without the benefit of the initial TET. The Navy submitted a report addressing all three of Pulau's protests.