ELS Inc., B-283236; B-283236.2, October 25, 1999

ELS Inc., B-283236; B-283236.2, October 25, 1999 TITLE: ELS Inc., B-283236; B-283236.2, October 25, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283236; B-283236.2 DATE: October 25, 1999 ********************************************************************** ELS Inc., B-283236; B-283236.2, October 25, 1999 Decision Matter of: ELS Inc. File: B-283236; B-283236.2 Date: October 25, 1999 Joseph G. Billings, Esq., for the protester. William A. Weisberg, Esq., Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., and Jeff S. Robinette, Esq., Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, for ADI Technology Corporation, an intervenor. Annett H. Madison, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, 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. In a procurement for a cost-type, level-of-effort support services contract, the agency conducted a reasonable cost realism analysis where, among other things, it assessed the consistency of awardee's proposed labor hour and labor mix with that identified in the solicitation, verified the awardee's proposed direct labor and indirect cost rates with the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and found that awardee demonstrated a more than satisfactory technical approach and understanding of the contract requirements. 2. Agency reasonably evaluated awardee's proposed professional compensation plan pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 52.222-46, where the agency determined from a review of the awardee's proposed direct labor rates and the awardee's offer of current, long-time employed personnel that awardee could provide a quality workforce throughout the contract term. 3. General Accounting Office will question the composition of, and changes to, an evaluation panel only if there is evidence of bad faith, bias, or conflict of interest. DECISION ELS Inc. protests the award of a contract to ADI Technology Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-98-R-2907, issued by the Naval Sea Systems Command for services in support of the SEAWOLF Attack Submarine Acquisition Program. ELS complains that the agency improperly evaluated ADI's proposed costs and that ELS's proposal should have been selected for award. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), level-of-effort contract for program management, engineering, logistics, and computer system support for the SEAWOLF program office (PMS-350) for a base year with 4 option years. RFP at 2, 3, 9, 35. A broad statement of work was provided to describe the kinds of services that the contractor could be requested to perform. RFP at 9-19. The RFP provided an annual level-of-effort estimate for each year of the contract (155,000 productive labor hours for the base year and 685,000 labor hours for the entire contract period), and informed offerors that any deviation from the labor-hour estimates without substantiation may result in rejection of the proposal. RFP at 105. In addition, the RFP identified and defined labor mix categories (various levels of senior, junior, and support staff), and stated the government's anticipated mix of labor categories (e.g., senior staff level 1 would comprise 1.4 percent of the mix). For each of these labor categories, the RFP stated an estimated minimum, unburdened hourly rate for the base year based upon a 40-hour work week. Offerors were informed that, "while not a firm requirement, [these rates represent] the minimum unburdened hourly rate (direct labor), the Navy estimates is required to hire and retain personnel at the skill levels defined under the Labor Mix Definitions." RFP at 107. The RFP also informed offerors that they may offer "uncompensated effort" (also known as uncompensated overtime) in their proposed level of effort. [1] RFP at 82. The RFP provided for award, without discussions, on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff, and identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors: Technical Category Experience Factor a. Personnel qualifications b. Corporate experience c. Past performance Technical Approach Factor a. Understanding and approach b. Specific technical capability c. Unique ideas and capabilities Management Approach Factor a. Organization b. Interface c. Contract management d. Cost management e. Workforce loading plan f. Start-up plan Facilities and Resources Factor Cost Category Projected Cost to the Government Factor RFP at 116-17. The experience and technical approach factors were stated to be of equal importance and to be more important than the management approach factor, which was stated to be significantly more important than the facilities and resources factor. RFP at 117.