Techniarts Science & Technology Corporation, B-280521.2; B-

Techniarts Science & Technology Corporation, B-280521.2; B- BNUMBER: B-280521.2; B-280521.4 DATE: October 15, 1998 TITLE: Techniarts Science & Technology Corporation, B-280521.2; B- 280521.4, October 15, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Techniarts Science & Technology Corporation File:B-280521.2; B-280521.4 Date:October 15, 1998 Judith H. Deitz 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., Glenn Wolcott, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's discussions with protester were meaningful and not misleading where agency advised firm of areas where proposal needed clarifications or revisions and in response to agency's concerns, protester elected to propose the more costly technical solution. DECISION Techniarts Science & Technology Corporation (TSTC) 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 visual information end products and technical services in support of pre-launch, launch, post-launch, and non-launch operations, also called the Visual Information Technical Contract (VITC). TSTC asserts that JCWS's proposal was unbalanced, and that the Air Force improperly evaluated JCWS's technical proposal and conducted misleading discussions with TSTC. 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. RFP sec. B. 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 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. The RFP further provided that for the purpose of evaluating proposals, rental charges for the use of non-mandatory government-owned facilities and equipment which the contractor proposed to use would be added to the bid/proposal price. RFP sec. M-900. While the RFP stressed that the government was seeking innovative approaches for performance of the VITC, it also recognized that offerors who propose significant capital investment in new technology and updated equipment would accept the greatest risk in performance of the contract, and therefore the evaluation criteria were structured so that offerors proposing to perform the VITC in substantially the same manner as the existing contract would meet the evaluation standards. To exceed the standards, a proposal had to offer contract performance which would provide superior customer support while providing technical solutions which would reduce overall VITC support costs (contract costs plus other support costs such as maintenance of facilities and equipment). RFP sec. M-2.b. Five initial proposals were received by the June 20, 1997 closing date.