Orbital Technologies Corporation, B-281453; B-281453.2; B-

Orbital Technologies Corporation, B-281453; B-281453.2; B- BNUMBER: B-281453; B-281453.2; B-281453.3 DATE: February 17, 1999 TITLE: Orbital Technologies Corporation, B-281453; B-281453.2; B- 281453.3, February 17, 1999 ********************************************************************** 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:Orbital Technologies Corporation File: B-281453; B-281453.2; B-281453.3 Date:February 17, 1999 S. Gregg Kunzi, Esq., and Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Hogan & Hartson; and David F. Grams, Esq., David F. Grams & Associates, for the protester. John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals submitted in response to solicitation for research and development support services is denied where the protest evidences the protester's mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation and there is no basis on which to find that the evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Allegation that agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was proper and in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. 3. Protester's arguments that the cost realism adjustments made to the awardee's proposed labor costs were improper are denied where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis for its cost evaluation. DECISION Orbital Technologies Corporation protests the award of a contract to ERC, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04611-98-R-0025, issued by the Department of the Air Force, as a total small business set-aside, for research in propulsion sciences (RPS) at Edwards Air Force Base, California.[1] The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection decision were unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. We deny the protests. A draft RFP, consisting of a statement of work (SOW) and sections L and M, was issued on March 17, 1998 to potential offerors. The draft RFP advised that a reference library had been established by the agency to help prospective offerors prepare their proposals and that site observations would be provided, and solicited industry comments. The final RFP, issued on July 21, provided for the award of a multi-year (9-year) cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide RPS services to support the Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate in the area of space and missile rocket propulsion technologies. RFP sec. L-I, L-II, M. As amended, the RFP provided for award on a best value basis and informed offerors that the non-cost factors combined were more important than cost. The following evaluation factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance, were identified: 1. Mission Capability a. Employee retention/attraction b. Communications/coordination c. Value added cost reduction processes d. Program management e. Scenario 2. Proposal Risk 3. Price/Cost 4. Past Performance RFP sec. M-3. Mission capability and proposal risk factors were of equal importance and of greater importance than the past performance and cost factors. The cost factor was of greater importance than past performance and all three non-cost factors when combined were significantly more important than cost; however, cost was considered a substantial factor in award. Id. Detailed instructions were provided for the preparation of technical and cost proposals. RFP sec. L-II. The RFP provided for a cost realism analysis and authorized the government to adjust offerors' proposed costs to reflect the government's estimate of the most probable cost (MPC) of performance. The cost realism analysis would consider whether the costs proposed reflected the offeror's understanding of the requirement and were realistic in relation to the services to be provided. RFP sec. M-3(e). Offerors were required to provide a detailed breakdown of costs, including labor rates, labor escalation rates, indirect costs, and personnel relocation costs; in computing their proposed labor costs, offerors were directed to use the RFP's estimated labor hours. RFP sec. L-II, at 12-15. Nine firms, including Orbital and ERC, submitted offers by the amended closing date for receipt of proposals. As relevant here, Orbital's total proposed costs were [deleted] and ERC's were $35.1 million.