Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999

Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999 TITLE: Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999 BNUMBER: B-280967.8; B-280967.9 DATE: June 14, 1999 ********************************************************************** Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8; B-280967.9, June 14, 1999 Matter of: Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. File: B-280967.8; B-280967.9 Date: June 14, 1999 Timothy B. Mills, Esq., and Lynn T. Burleson, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. Carolyn Callaway, Esq., for ATM Service Company, an intervenor. Matilde L. Espinoza, Esq., Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Charles S. Przbylek, Esq., and Wilfred E. Maez, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency's evaluation of credentials of key management and technical personnel is denied where evaluation was consistent with solicitation's stated evaluation scheme and statement of work, discussion questions addressed this issue, and evaluation is supported by the record. 2. Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly concluded that the awardee's higher-rated, higher-cost proposal offered the best value to the government is denied, where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation scheme; the request for proposals stated that technical/management and past performance evaluation areas were more important than price; and source selection official reasonably determined that the greater technical merit of the awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost. DECISION Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. (ADC) protests the award of a contract to ATM Service Company (ATM) by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP04-98AL78902. Basically, ADC alleges that the evaluation of proposals and award decision were fatally flawed. We deny the protest. Issued on June 5, 1998, as a total small business set-aside, the RFP solicited proposals for providing support services to the Safeguards and Security Division of the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL). RFP Cover Letter at 1. DOE is the responsible steward for the nation's nuclear weapons. The Safeguards and Security Division is responsible for management, implementation, and oversight of safeguards and security programs at DOE/AL. RFP sect. J, attach. A, at 1. The programs are designed to protect the nuclear weapon complex, consisting of DOE nuclear laboratories and production plants. Among other things, the programs ensure the safe and secure staging of nuclear components and materials awaiting permanent disposition and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Agency Report at 1. The contractor will provide a variety of technical support services to support the Safeguards and Security Division in accomplishing that mission. [1] The RFP envisioned award of a fixed-price time and materials contract for a base period of 1 year with options for 4 additional years; work will be performed upon the issuance of task orders issued by the agency. RFP sect. B. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the best value, after consideration of technical, cost/price and other factors. RFP sect. M.01(a). The RFP listed the areas on which proposals would be evaluated, in descending order of importance, as (1) technical/management, (2) past performance, and (3) cost/price. RFP sect. M.01(c). The RFP stated that the technical/management and past performance areas were of greater importance than cost/price. RFP sect. M.02(a). Within the technical/management evaluation area, the subfactors were (1) understanding the statement of work (SOW) and tasks, (2) key management and technical personnel, (3) management control, and (4) management organization. RFP sect. M.02(b). Five firms submitted initial proposals, which were evaluated. On September 2, 1998, without conducting discussions, DOE awarded the contract to ATM. Two firms, ADC and GEM Technology, filed protests in our Office. After DOE notified us that it would take corrective action in response to the protests (including reopening the procurement, conducting discussions, receiving and evaluating best and final offers (BAFOs), and making a new award decision), we dismissed both protests as academic. Discussions were held with all five offerors, and BAFOs were received in January 1999. After evaluation by the source evaluation team (SET), ADC's BAFO received a total score of [deleted] points (out of 1,250 possible points) at an evaluated cost of $[deleted] while ATM's BAFO received a total score of [deleted] points at an evaluated cost of $14,461,400. Agency Report, Tab 5.b, Final SET Report, at 5-6.