Aerostructures, Inc., B-280284, September 15, 1998

B-280284 Sep 15, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against solicitation terms relating to evaluation of offeror personnel and cost is denied where record shows that solicitation reflects agency's needs and protest contentions essentially amount to assertions that solicitation should be more restrictive. 2. Protest that agency improperly withdrew small business set-aside is denied where. Agency reasonably determined it was unlikely that at least two offers from responsible small businesses would be received. The contract awarded will be an indefinite-quantity. Firms are required to submit numerous resumes to show the education and experience of their proposed employees. We will question a solicitation provision only where the protester shows that it is not reasonably related to the agency's requirements and has the effect of restricting competition. View Decision Matter of: Aerostructures, Inc. File: B-280284 Date: September 15, DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Aerostructures, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-97-R-1269, issued by the Department of the Navy for services in connection with its aircraft structural life surveillance program. Aerostructures principally maintains that the RFP improperly relaxes certain requirements included in previous solicitations, and that the agency improperly issued the RFP on an unrestricted basis, rather than as a small business set-aside. We deny the protest. The solicitation seeks proposals for a base year, with four 1-year options, to perform engineering analyses, technical studies and structural testing for the structural management of the Navy's aircraft. The contract awarded will be an indefinite-quantity, fixed-price-per-labor-hour contract. The RFP calls for firms to submit detailed technical, past performance, management and cost proposals to demonstrate their ability to perform the requirement. As part of their technical proposals, firms are required to submit numerous resumes to show the education and experience of their proposed employees, as well as detailed information relating to similar prior or ongoing contracts for purposes of evaluating the firm's past performance. RFP PROVISIONS Personnel Qualifications Aerostructures maintains that the RFP improperly relaxes requirements (compared to prior RFPs for this acquisition)--and thereby eliminates a competitive advantage it otherwise would enjoy as the incumbent contractor--in the area of personnel qualifications by imposing only minimal educational and experience requirements. In drafting solicitations, agencies may include restrictive provisions or conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(a)(1)(B)(ii) (1994). We will question a solicitation provision only where the protester shows that it is not reasonably related to the agency's requirements and has the effect of restricting competition, see Micromass, Inc., B-278869, Mar. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 93 at 3, since our role in reviewing bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirement for full and open competition is met, not to protect the competitive interest a protester may have in solicitation terms that could make it more difficult for certain firms to compete. Simplix, B-274388, Dec. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 216 at 5-6. /1/ The protester's challenge to this RFP is untenable. An agency simply is not required to limit a competition to firms offering personnel with a certain amount of education or experience, or even to award additional evaluation credit to firms offering personnel with greater education or experience, where it has determined that the additional qualifications are unnecessary to the fulfilling of the government's needs. The protester's position would require the solicitation to be modified to require more--i.e., personnel with greater qualifications--than the agency actually needs; this is inconsistent with the principle of full and open competition, and does not provide a valid basis for protest. In any case, the RFP and source selection plan both provide for the possibility that a firm's personnel qualifications will merit additional consideration in the evaluation. In this respect, the RFP specifically provides that individuals exceeding the minimum requirements in the areas of experience and education may be rated higher, RFP at 135, and further provides for the assignment of a range of adjectival ratings for each prospective employee that is evaluated. RFP at 133, 135. The source selection plan also provides for detailed consideration of each proposed employee's relative merit through the evaluation of each resume submitted, with the evaluators assigning adjectival ratings and including a narrative discussion of the employee's strengths and weaknesses.