Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., B-281836, April

B-281836 Apr 12, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly credited awardee for proposing the incumbent's key employees is denied where (1) the solicitation permitted offerors to propose personnel from whom the offeror had no commitment. (3) the awardee's plan to provide salaries at or above the level provided by the incumbent reasonably was evaluated as sufficient to make it likely that the awardee would be able to hire the incumbent employees if it prevailed in the competition. 2. Challenge to the agency's conclusion that three of the awardee's proposed key employees met the experience requirements set forth in the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that at least two of the three minimally complied with the experience requirements. View Decision Matter of: Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. File: B-281836 Date: April 12, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. (CTL) protests the award of a contract to Professional Services Industry, Inc. (PSI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-98-R-00087, issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for engineering and technical services to support research activities at FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. CTL, the incumbent here, argues that the agency improperly evaluated PSI's proposal by crediting PSI with the strengths of the incumbent personnel, rather than evaluating PSI's proposal solely on the strengths of the personnel offered. CTL also argues that there were additional errors in the technical evaluation, that the agency performed an improper cost realism analysis, and that the cost/technical tradeoff was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center performs analytical studies, laboratory testing, and field testing of highway structures, as well as modeling and materials sampling. The Center also produces research reports and academic papers. The RFP was issued on August 27, 1998, to provide engineering and technical services in support of the Center's Structures Laboratory. The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 2-year base period followed by three 1-year option periods, to the offeror whose proposal presented the overall best value to the government. RFP Sec. M, at 62. The RFP identified four evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: technical, cost, past performance, and small business/minority business/minority institution participation. Id. at 65. The RFP further explained that the three non-cost factors were significantly more important than cost. Id. Under the most important evaluation factor, technical, the RFP identified six subfactors, in descending order of importance. These subfactors, paraphrased, include: (1) key personnel qualifications and experience; (2) program manager's experience; (3) experience managing large-scale highway structural research and laboratory service efforts; (4) knowledge and experience in four areas related to highway bridge structures; (5) expert consultant pool; and (6) resources. Id. at 62-64. The RFP, at section L, set forth specific educational and experience requirements for the program manager, and for the other key personnel, which included a research engineer, two research assistants, two expert technicians, and two research technicians. Id. at 50-53. As set forth below, although the RFP called for offerors to submit a letter of commitment from each individual proposed for a key position, it also permitted an alternate approach: Staffing proposals shall clearly identify each of the individuals proposed for all Key Personnel positions identified below. For each Key Personnel position, the offeror's proposal must contain a letter of commitment from the individual proposed demonstrating that this individual is capable of meeting the full-time, on-site requirement for that position. In lieu of a commitment letter, offerors must provide a detailed discussion of the proposed compensation package and a detailed transition plan for meeting the Key Personnel staffing requirements on or before the effective date of the contract. In all cases, resume's [sic] and biographical summaries must be provided for the individual proposed for each Key Personnel position demonstrating that the individual proposed meets the qualifications and requirements described herein. The Staffing proposal must clearly demonstrate that all individuals proposed meet the following minimum qualifications and requirements . . . . Id. at 50-51. In addition to proposing personnel, offerors were to address the technical requirements of the solicitation through a technical "dissertation." Id. at 50. The agency received two proposals in response to the RFP, CTL's and PSI's.