TRW, Inc.--Costs, B-282459.3, August 4, 1999

B-282459.3 Aug 04, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Only the costs of the initial protest are at issue here. In which our attorney told the parties that it was her view that the protest was likely to be sustained. Which were simply added together as if each labor category would be used equally during contract performance. The parties were advised that similar price evaluations had been held improper by our Office. Technical evaluation issues were not discussed at the ADR conference because. These issues did not fit squarely within established precedent and because it was anticipated that corrective action taken with regard to the price evaluation issue would render the technical evaluation issues academic. The Army did not offer to amend the solicitation and accept revised proposals unless it was unable to develop such reasonable. View Decision Matter of: TRW, Inc.--Costs File: B-282459.3 Date: August 4, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION TRW, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing an initial and supplemental protest challenging the award of a contract to BTG, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASC01-98-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, for linguist services. Because the agency has agreed to pay the costs associated with the supplemental protest, only the costs of the initial protest are at issue here. We deny the request. BACKGROUND After learning of the award to BTG and receiving a debriefing, TRW protested various aspects of the technical evaluation of proposals, which allegedly undermined the price/technical tradeoff. /1/ TRW received an agency report in response to its protest, which disclosed the Army's price evaluation methodology to TRW for the first time. Three days later, TRW filed a supplemental protest claiming that, by using that methodology, the Army failed to consider price as a significant evaluation factor, contrary to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C. Secs. 2305(a)(2)(A), 2305(a)(3)(A)(ii) (1994 & Supp. III 1997), and the RFP evaluation scheme. The Army defended its price evaluation in a supplemental agency report. Because TRW's supplemental protest appeared to be clearly meritorious, our Office held what we refer to as an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference, in which our attorney told the parties that it was her view that the protest was likely to be sustained. At the conference, our attorney expressed her view that the agency had failed to reasonably calculate the prices of the competing proposals, because it applied no estimated quantities to offerors' proposed labor rates, which were simply added together as if each labor category would be used equally during contract performance. The parties were advised that similar price evaluations had been held improper by our Office. See Lockheed, IMS, B-248686, Sept. 15, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 180; Professional Carpet Serv., B-220913, Feb. 13, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 158. Technical evaluation issues were not discussed at the ADR conference because, unlike the price evaluation issue, these issues did not fit squarely within established precedent and because it was anticipated that corrective action taken with regard to the price evaluation issue would render the technical evaluation issues academic. After the ADR conference, the Army offered to take corrective action. Because the proposed corrective action sparked objections from TRW and appeared to be unreasonable, our Office held a second ADR conference, after which the Army proposed corrective action acceptable to the parties. First, the Army proposed to determine each proposal's price by projecting offerors' proposed labor rates based on reasonable, internal quantity estimates reflecting its expected contract requirements; the Army did not offer to amend the solicitation and accept revised proposals unless it was unable to develop such reasonable, internal quantity estimates. Second, the Army proposed to perform a new price/technical tradeoff considering the results of the corrected price evaluation. Agency's Second Corrective Action Letter, June 16, 1999, at 1. Based on the proposed corrective action, we dismissed TRW's initial and supplemental protests as academic. In dismissing TRW's initial protest as academic, our Office denied the Army's request to issue a separate decision resolving the technical evaluation issues before the agency performed a new price/technical tradeoff. Agency's First Corrective Action Letter, June 7, 1999, at 2-3. While we acknowledged the possibility that TRW might protest the same technical evaluation issues if the agency ultimately confirmed BTG's award, we stated that we would not resolve the technical evaluation issues prior to the agency's corrective action.