RMS Information Systems, Inc., B-280521.3, October 21, 1998

B-280521.3 Oct 21, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's proposal was unbalanced is denied where there is no evidence of mathematical unbalancing and. There is no question that the awardee's proposal will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government because the solicitation price evaluation formula was structured to assign more weight to the most requested items to minimize the likelihood of offerors being able to gain any advantage through unbalanced pricing. 2. Protest that the agency failed to perform an adequate price realism analysis is denied where the price analysis was reasonably based on audit reports. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied where evaluation record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation evaluation criteria. 4. View Decision Matter of: RMS Information Systems, Inc. File: B-280521.3 Date: October 21, 1998 * Redacted Decison DIGEST Attorneys DECISION RMS Information Systems, Inc. (RMS) 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, known as the Visual Information Technical Contract (VITC). RMS asserts that JCWS's proposal was unbalanced, and that the Air Force failed to perform an adequate price realism analysis, improperly evaluated JCWS's technical proposal, and improperly awarded the contract to JCWS on the basis of its lower price because the agency had overstated RMS's evaluated price by approximately $9 million. 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 (CDRL). Id. 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 the following criteria: (1) Technical/Management (a) Project Management (b) Image Acquisition/Processing/End Products (2) Cost (a) Completeness (b) Reasonableness (c) Realism (3) 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. Id. 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 evaluation purposes, rental charges for the use of non-mandatory government-owned facilities and equipment which the contractor proposed to use would be added to the proposal price. RFP Sec. M-900. The monthly rental rates to be applied to non-mandatory government-furnished equipment were set forth as follows: Age of Equipment Monthly Rental Rate Under 2 years old 3% Over 2 to 6 years old 2% Over 6 years old 1.0% The RFP stated that the age of each item of equipment would be based on the year in which the item was acquired by the government and that the rental period would not be less than 1 month. RFP Sec.