Dual, Incorporated, B-280719, November 12, 1998

B-280719 Nov 12, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that Air Force evaluation and award decision were improper because they were based upon awardee's representation in its proposal that it owned the division and employed the employees that would perform the contract is sustained. Where the record shows that the awardee signed an agreement to sell the division and transfer the employees just days after the agency completed its evaluation and 2 weeks before the contract was awarded. Camber was negotiating the sale of that division to another firm while the procurement was being conducted. Dual also contends that the agency's evaluation of Dual's proposal and performance risk was unreasonable. The agency's best value determination was tainted by evaluation errors. View Decision Matter of: Dual, Incorporated File: B-280719 Date: November 12, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dual, Incorporated, a small business concern, protests the award of a contract to Camber Corporation by the Department of the Air Force pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-98-R-0008. The protester contends that Camber, one of two small business awardees, misrepresented that it would perform the contract work at its Albuquerque, New Mexico, division when, in fact, Camber was negotiating the sale of that division to another firm while the procurement was being conducted. Dual also contends that the agency's evaluation of Dual's proposal and performance risk was unreasonable; the agency improperly rated Dual's proposal as unsatisfactory based upon financial condition without first obtaining a responsibility determination from the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the agency's best value determination was tainted by evaluation errors. Protest Letter, Aug. 3, 1998, at 1. We sustain the protest. Issued on January 23, 1998, the RFP provided for award of several indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts (as many as two contracts to small businesses under a partial set-aside and two or more contracts under full and open competition) to meet the training systems needs of the Air Force, Department of Defense customers, and foreign military sales. RFP Sec. L-2:1.0, M-2:1.1.2. The scope of the contracts might include design, development, testing, production, modification, upgrade, delivery, and sustainment of training systems. RFP Sec. L-2:1.0b. The RFP provided that all contracts would be identical and would require the contractors to provide a broad range of training systems products, supplies and services specified in task or delivery orders issued by the agency. /1/ RFP Executive Summary Para. 5. The RFP provided that each IDIQ contract would guarantee a minimum of $75,000 of work over a 5-year ordering period and an 8-year period of performance. RFP Sec. H030. The RFP stated that the Air Force intended to award the contracts without discussions on the basis of a best value competitive source selection to the responsible offerors whose proposals conformed to the RFP requirements and who demonstrated the management, financial, technical, and facility capabilities necessary to fulfill the contract requirements. RFP Sec. M-2:1.0. The RFP listed, in descending order of importance, the following evaluation factors: capabilities assessment, management, cost, and general considerations. RFP Sec. M-2:2.0. Within each evaluation factor, the RFP listed and described in detail the related subfactors. Non-cost evaluation subfactors combined were significantly more important than cost. See generally, RFP Sec. M-2. The RFP stated that each subfactor under the capabilities assessment and management factors would be given a color/adjectival rating and a proposal risk rating. RFP Sec. M-2:6.0. The color/adjectival rating would depict how well the proposal met the evaluation standards and solicitation requirements, while the proposal risk rating would represent the risks that were identified in a proposed approach to accomplishing the RFP requirements. RFP Sec. M-2:6.1.1. The RFP stated that each evaluation factor, except general considerations, would also receive a performance risk assessment representing the agency's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the work based upon the offeror's past and present work record. RFP Sec. M-2:6.1.2. The general consideration factor would include a pre-award survey to determine the offeror's ability to meet the requirements and a determination of compliance with RFP terms and conditions, but would not be color/adjectivally rated or assessed for proposal or performance risk. RFP Sec. M-2:5.0, M-2:6.1.4. Eleven offers were evaluated by the source selection evaluation team. Seven of the offers were submitted by small business concerns and were evaluated for the small business partial set-aside portion of the procurement, and two of those were considered unacceptable.