I.T.S. Corporation, B-280431, September 29, 1998

B-280431 Sep 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Questions related to the sufficiency of their proposed staffing levels during both rounds of discussions and asking the protester a similar question during the second round of discussions only is denied where the awardee was in the same position as the protester going into the second round of discussions. Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced. Technical proposals were to be evaluated under five factors. Is at issue here. Manning levels and qualifications" in order to ascertain whether they were acceptable for the performance of the performance work statement (PWS). In response to one firm's observation that it would be helpful to have a government staffing estimate. View Decision Matter of: I.T.S. Corporation File: B-280431 Date: September 29, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION I.T.S. Corporation protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range and the subsequent award of a contract to MCA Engineers, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04684-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force to obtain technical support for computer services at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. I.T.S. contends that the Air Force conducted prejudicially unequal and misleading discussions with the firm. We deny the protest. The Air Force issued this solicitation on February 2, 1998, to obtain such services as the installation, operation, maintenance, programming, and management of computer resources; computer security; and life-cycle acquisition management. RFP Sec. C-1, Para. 1.1. The solicitation, set aside for small businesses, anticipated the award of a contract with fixed-price, labor hour, and cost-reimbursement line items to be performed over a 4-month base period, with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP Sec. L-65C, F-12. Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. RFP Sec. M-601. Technical proposals were to be evaluated under five factors, only one of which, management, is at issue here. In evaluating proposals under the management factor, the agency planned to review, among other things, each offeror's proposed "organizational structure, manning levels and qualifications" in order to ascertain whether they were acceptable for the performance of the performance work statement (PWS). RFP Sec. M-602(B)(2). Amendment No. 01 included the Air Force's responses to questions posed by prospective offerors. In response to one firm's observation that it would be helpful to have a government staffing estimate, the Air Force stated that the solicitation did not specify staffing levels and that proposals were to be based upon the offerors' experience and understanding of the PWS, workload estimates, and technical exhibits. Amendment No. 01, Questions and Answers Section at 1. While the solicitation itself did not specify staffing levels, the Air Force's independent government estimate (IGE) was based upon a staffing level of 23 full-time equivalents (FTE), broken down by various tasks. /1/ IGE at 2. The Air Force received six proposals by the March 26 extended closing date. The technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated each proposal and prepared clarification requests (CR) and deficiency reports (DR) for each offeror. Relevant to this protest, two offerors were issued CRs which asked them to clarify that their staffing levels were sufficient to support the requirements of specific PWS paragraphs. MCA was issued a CR which referenced a figure and specific text in its proposal and asked the firm to clarify the total staffing offered--the record shows that the numbers in the figure and text were not the same. The only staffing-level-related CR issued to I.T.S. advised the firm that it had failed to describe how a certain support task would be performed and misunderstood certain related staffing requirements. All four of these offerors proposed staffing levels of substantially fewer than 23 FTEs, and only one offeror's proposed staffing level was lower than that of I.T.S. The contracting officer included all six proposals in the competitive range and issued each offeror its respective CRs/DRs. The TET reviewed all of the CR/DR responses and forwarded its conclusions to the contracting officer, who found that each offeror had outstanding issues. Relevant to this protest, the four offerors above did not have satisfactory staffing levels when compared with the government's undisclosed standard. In this regard, neither offeror that was asked to clarify whether its staffing levels were sufficient to support certain requirements increased its staffing levels--one sought to justify its staffing levels and the other merely stated that its staffing levels were sufficient. MCA did not increase its staffing level but did, as asked, clarify the discrepancy in its proposal.