TRW, Inc., B-282162; B-282162.2, June 9, 1999

TRW, Inc., B-282162; B-282162.2, June 9, 1999 TITLE: TRW, Inc., B-282162; B-282162.2, June 9, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282162; B-282162.2 DATE: June 9, 1999 ********************************************************************** TRW, Inc., B-282162; B-282162.2, June 9, 1999 Matter of: TRW, Inc. File: B-282162; B-282162.2 Date: June 9, 1999 C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Patrick K. O'Keefe, Esq., and Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Robert M. Halperin, Esq., Joseph W.C. Warren, Esq., Tejpal Singh Chawla, Esq., and Deborah W. Feinstein, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Motorola, Inc., the intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and James R. McMurry, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was reasonable where the agency investigated and evaluated each of the contracts referenced in the awardee's proposal; other information regarding the awardee's allegedly deficient prior performance on subcontracts was not so "close at hand" that it had to be considered by the agency. 2. Protest that the agency's cost realism evaluation of the awardee's proposal was unreasonable is denied where the evaluation was detailed, well-documented, and reasonably performed, and the protester only generally asserts that the awardee's proposed staffing level may be too low. 3. Protest that the agency should have excluded the awardee from the competition because a subcontractor, proposed by the awardee in its initial proposal but omitted from its revised proposals, allegedly has a conflict of interest is denied where the subcontractor did not participate in the preparation of the solicitation and there is no substantial evidence establishing that the awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage from the subcontractor's participation in the preparation of the awardee's initial proposal. DECISION TRW, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Motorola, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-98-R-0424, issued by the Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Department of the Army for tactical operations centers (TOC). TRW argues that the agency's evaluation of Motorola's past performance and cost proposals was unreasonable. TRW also contends that the award to Motorola was improper due to a conflict of interest involving one of the subcontractors initially proposed by Motorola. We deny the protest. TOCs consist of integrated groupings of wheeled and/or tracked vehicles that are connected by large tent-like shelters. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. TOCs house various communication and data processing equipment, including a local area network, intercom, and large screen displays. The purpose of a TOC is to provide a battlefield commander with an overall view of tactical operations forces, and allow the commander and staff to plan, monitor, and direct the operations of the forces. Id. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the upgrade, digitization, and standardization of 64 existing TOCs. Id.; RFP sect. L-7. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, considering management, technical, cost, and past performance evaluation criteria. RFP amend. 1, sect. M-3. The RFP stated that technical was more important than cost, that cost was more important than management, and that management was significantly more important than past performance. Id. The RFP added that cost, management, and past performance together were more important than technical, and that all evaluation criteria other than cost were significantly more important than cost. Id. The agency received three proposals, including Motorola's and TRW's, by the RFP's closing date. Agency Report at 3. The proposals were evaluated, and all three proposals were included in the competitive range. Agency Report, Section D, tab 1.f, Determination of Competitive Range at 15. Discussions were held, and revised proposals were received and evaluated. Agency Report, Section D, tab 2.a. Updated cost proposals were subsequently requested, and following their receipt, the agency requested and received best and final offers (BAFO) from the offerors. Agency Report, Section D, tabs 2.b. and 2.c. TRW's and Motorola's BAFOs were each rated as "good" under the technical and management criteria, and "low risk" under the past performance criterion, at evaluated costs of $55,691,732 and $49,323,820, respectively. Agency Report, Section D, tabs 2.e.1., 2.e.2., 2.f.1., 2.f.2. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that the proposals of TRW and Motorola were essentially equal in merit, [1] and selected Motorola for award because of its proposal's lower evaluated cost.