KBM Group, Inc., B-281919; B-281919.2, May 3, 1999

KBM Group, Inc., B-281919; B-281919.2, May 3, 1999 TITLE: KBM Group, Inc., B-281919; B-281919.2, May 3, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281919; B-281919.2 DATE: May 3, 1999 ********************************************************************** KBM Group, Inc., B-281919; B-281919.2, May 3, 1999 Decision Matter of: KBM Group, Inc. File: B-281919; B-281919.2 Date: May 3, 1999 Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Patrick K. O'Keefe, Esq., and Jeremy M. Griffin, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, and John S. Pachter, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for the protester. Richard J. Vacura, Esq., Holly Emrick Svetz, Esq., and William J. Crowley, Esq., Piper & Marbury, and Rex L. Fuller III, Esq., for Milvets Systems Technology, Inc., an intervenor. Duane Zezula, Esq., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency did not mislead protester during discussions even though award was ultimately made based on price and agency did not inform protester that its price was higher than awardee's price, where agency did not believe that protester's price was too high. 2. Agency did not conduct unequal discussions with awardee and protester where agency conducted technical discussions with awardee, whose technical proposal was initially evaluated as containing a number of weaknesses, while conducting no technical discussions with protester, whose initial proposal was evaluated as containing no weaknesses. 3. Protest that protester is entitled to a higher adjectival rating than awardee based upon protester's specific incumbent experience and staff is denied where agency in fact reasonably assessed the relative merits of protester's and awardee's proposals, including protester's specific experience and staff. 4. Protest that source selection authority did not adequately consider the merits of protester's technical proposal is denied where source selection authority considered the relative merits of protester's and awardee's proposals and reasonably determined that the proposals were essentially equal technically and that award should therefore be made to awardee based upon its substantially lower price. DECISION KBM Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Milvets Systems Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. BATF-97-15, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF), Department of the Treasury, for services in support of the National Tracing Center. KBM challenges the agency's conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided for the award of a fixed-price, labor-hour contract for services in support of the National Tracing Center for a base period with 4 option years. RFP amend. 4, sect.sect. B, C.2, F.3. The National Tracing Center responds to requests of federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies for tracing of firearms used in crimes. [1] RFP sect. C.1. Among other services, the contractor will perform data entry, convert firearm transaction documents to microfilm, index records, and develop, install and maintain various database and data entry systems on local area networks. RFP sect. C.2. Estimates of the kind and number of personnel and labor hours required to perform the contract services were provided. RFP sect.sect. B.3, C.1. Offerors were also informed as follows: The in-house estimate for these services is between $40 and $50 million for the term of the contract. You are advised to structure your proposal price accordingly. [2] RFP amend. 4., Cover Page. The RFP provided for award on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff and identified the following technical evaluation factors: (1) general and project management, (2) corporate experience and past performance, and (3) transition plans. The general and project management factor contained the following subfactors: (a) corporate structure and lines of authority and the ability to provide backup resources sufficient to meet fluctuations in workload; (b) approach to staffing and managing a project of this magnitude; key personnel qualifications; (c) management availability and involvement in project oversight and problem resolution; and (d) approach to providing continuous process improvement. RFP sect. M.2.a. Offerors were informed that the general and project management factor and corporate experience and past performance factor were of equal importance and both of greater importance than the transition plans factor. Also, "[a]ll evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price." RFP sect. M.1(c). The RFP also provided for a price realism analysis to assess the realism and relationship of proposed hourly rates to the total overall evaluated price. RFP sect.