ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-283307; B-283307.2, November 3, 1999

ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-283307; B-283307.2, November 3, 1999 TITLE: ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-283307; B-283307.2, November 3, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283307; B-283307.2 DATE: November 3, 1999 ********************************************************************** ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-283307; B-283307.2, November 3, 1999 Decision Matter of: ITT Federal Services International Corporation File: B-283307; B-283307.2 Date: November 3, 1999 C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Arleigh Closser, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Rand L. Allen, Esq., William Lieth, Esq., Daniel A. Silien, Esq., and David O. Ferry, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for Combat Support Associates, an intervenor. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Richard B. O'Keeffe, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the validity of a source selection decision where the selection official chose the awardee's technically equal, higher cost proposal based on his conclusion that the protester's lower proposed costs were not reliable (in the SSA's view, they either would increase over time or would reflect reduction in quality of services provided), is sustained where (1) the selection decision is not adequately documented under the revised Part 15 Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements that documentation of tradeoff decisions include the benefits associated with additional costs; (2) the decision is improperly based on proposed, rather than evaluated, costs, because the agency did not perform a cost realism analysis of final costs; and (3) the concerns raised by the selection official about the protester's costs were shown during a hearing to be unsupported by the facts in the record. DECISION ITT Federal Services International Corporation protests the award of a contract to Combat Support Associates (CSA) by the Department of the Army, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DASA02-98-R-5000, issued to procure base operations and combat support at Camp Doha, Kuwait. ITT argues that the Army's selection of CSA was unreasonable and violated the terms of the solicitation because CSA's and ITT's proposals were essentially equal technically, while CSA's costs were significantly higher than ITT's costs. In addition, ITT argues that the Army's evaluation of past performance was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Camp Doha, Kuwait, is a large logistics base located 20 miles west of Kuwait City that serves as the Army's forward presence in the Middle East. Camp Doha has a working population of over 2,000 personnel including U.S. military personnel, as well as U.S., Kuwaiti, and third-country national contractor personnel. This RFP, for Camp Doha's base operations and management support services, was issued October 30, 1998, and anticipates the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base year, followed by nine 1-year options. RFP sect. B. Among other things, the contractor is required to provide and maintain supplies and equipment for military exercises, and for contingency and combat operations, including heavy combat vehicles, tactical vehicles, and related armaments, ammunition, electronics and repair parts. Initial Agency Report, Aug. 25, 1999, at 1-3. The RFP's evaluation scheme advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government. RFP sect. M.3. To determine which proposal offered the best value, the RFP identified three evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: quality (also referred to in the record as technical), past performance, and cost. RFP sect. M.5. Under the quality and past performance evaluation factors, the RFP identified subfactors, elements, and subelements; however, most of these details are not relevant to this decision and will be set forth below only as needed. With respect to proposed costs, the RFP advised that the government would calculate a most probable cost (MPC) estimate for each proposal. RFP sect. M.5.4.c.1. In addition, offerors were advised that the "degree of importance of the Cost/Price factor will increase as the quality differences in the proposals decrease." RFP sect. M.5.3. The Army received four proposals in response to the RFP, and evaluated each under the factors of quality and past performance. [1] Under these factors, each of the initial proposals received an adjectival rating and point score on the following scale: outstanding, 93-100 points; good, 85-92 points; fair, 78-84 points; poor, 70-77 points; and unacceptable, 0-70 points. In addition, the agency evaluated each offeror's proposed costs and calculated an MPC estimate for each proposal.