Bionetics Corporation, B-280521; B-280521.5, October 14, 1998

Bionetics Corporation, B-280521; B-280521.5, October 14, 1998 BNUMBER: B-280521; B-280521.5 DATE: October 14, 1998 TITLE: Bionetics Corporation, B-280521; B-280521.5, October 14, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Bionetics Corporation File: B-280521; B-280521.5 Date:October 14, 1998 Del S. Dameron, Esq., and Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. David R. Johnson, Esq., Kathleen C. Little, Esq., and Robert J. Rothwell, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, for Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., an intervenor. John E. Lariccia, Esq., Martin F. McAlwee, Esq., and Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Allegation that contracting agency conducted misleading discussions which caused protester [deleted] is denied where the record shows that the protester was properly questioned about apparent shortcomings in its approach to meeting agency requirements with respect to processing, in response to which the protester made a business decision to [deleted]. DECISION Bionetics Corporation protests the award of a contract to Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (JCWS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08650-98-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for certain visual information end products and technical services in support of pre-launch, launch, post-launch, and non-launch operations, known as the Visual Information Technical Contract (VITC). Bionetics asserts that the agency improperly and inconsistently downgraded Bionetics's initial proposal on the basis that the [deleted] presented problems with respect to required facility clearances and a 4-hour delivery requirement, while JCWS's proposal was not downgraded for [deleted], and that the agency's criticism of Bionetics's initial proposal during discussions misled Bionetics into proposing in its best and final offer (BAFO) to perform this work [deleted], thereby substantially increasing Bionetics's evaluated price. In a supplemental protest, Bionetics also asserts that JCWS engaged in impermissible "bait and switch" practices with respect to certain key personnel identified in its BAFO. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 20, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, labor-hour contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The contract is to obtain visual imaging end products for launch and non-launch events for the 45th Space Wing and NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Offerors were to propose a fixed price per event for Basic Launch Image Acquisition Packages (camera/equipment setups and operations for missile launches and shuttle launches and landings), and Launch Image Acquisition Services (covering launches, landings, slips and scrubs). Additionally, offerors were to propose a price per hour for over and above image acquisition requirements (requested still, motion picture, and video coverage for non-launch activities and government equipment maintenance support). Film, digital images, and video processing and print products were to be proposed on a schedule identifying additional products with prices for each product. RFP sec. B. The VITC also contained five separately priced contract data requirements lists. The RFP provided for a best value award to be determined by an integrated assessment of the cost criterion, the specific criteria, assessment criteria, proposal risk, performance risk, and general considerations. RFP sec. M-2.a. The RFP listed as the evaluation criteria technical/management factors (consisting of project management and image acquisition/processing/end products), cost, and general considerations. All technical evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal in value to cost. General considerations were of lesser importance but were to be an important consideration in the award decision. RFP sec. M-2.a. The RFP also provided that proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk, which would involve an assessment of the risk associated with the offeror's proposed approach to accomplish the requirements. RFP sec. M-2.d. Proposals were also to be evaluated for performance risk, which would involve an assessment of the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated relevant present and past performance.[1] RFP sec. M.e.