Communication Technologies, Inc., B-283491; B-283491.2, November 30, 1999

Communication Technologies, Inc., B-283491; B-283491.2, November 30, 1999 TITLE: Communication Technologies, Inc., B-283491; B-283491.2, November 30, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283491; B-283491.2 DATE: November 30, 1999 ********************************************************************** Communication Technologies, Inc., B-283491; B-283491.2, November 30, 1999 Decision Matter of: Communication Technologies, Inc. File: B-283491; B-283491.2 Date: November 30, 1999 Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Scott Arnold, Esq., W. Hartman Young, Esq., and Linda A. Mayer, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester. Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., and Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for ARTEL, Inc., an intervenor. H. Jack Shearer, Esq., and McKenzie Whitaker, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, 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 Protester's contentions that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal with an eye toward ensuring that the awardee would prevail (after the source selection authority directed a reevaluation of proposals in certain areas before making his selection decision) is denied where the record shows no evidence of bad faith on the part of the agency evaluators, and where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Communication Technologies, Inc. (Comtek) protests the award of a contract to ARTEL, Inc. by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA200-98-R-0060, issued to procure engineering services in support of the Defense Switched Network (DSN), the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN), and other related networks. Comtek argues that the agency's selection decision was improperly based on unreasonable evaluation conclusions in the areas of past performance and experience, and an unreasonable view that the ARTEL proposal offered a better approach to working with DISA's large business network support contractor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement is the small business set-aside component of two related service contracts awarded by DISA. The instant contract is referenced by DISA as the DISN Network Management Support Services--Global (DNMSS-G) Associate Support Contract (ASC), hereinafter, the ASC contract; the related large business contract is referenced by DISA as the DNMSS-G Network Engineered Contract (NEC), hereinafter, the NEC contract. Both solicitations were issued on December 1, 1998. The ASC RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a 2-year base period and three 1-year options. RFP sect. F-1. The RFP sought engineering, program development, testing, installation, provisioning, and operations and maintenance in support of the DSN, the Defense Red Switch Network (which handles secured communications), and DISA's Metropolitan Area Networks. Agency Report (AR) at 4-5. The RFP contained a $2.5 million minimum purchase guarantee, and a $100 million maximum value. RFP sect. H-2. In addition, the RFP included the limitation on subcontracting clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.219-14, which requires that at least 50 percent of the cost of performance incurred for personnel shall be for employees of the small business prime contractor. RFP sect. I, at 1. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would make award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value after consideration of three major areas--technical/management, past performance/experience, and cost/price. RFP sect. M-2. The RFP provided the following guidance on the relative weight of these three areas: In award selection, "Technical/Management" is more important than "Past Performance/Experience," which is significantly more important than "Price/Cost." "Past Performance/Experience" and "Price/Cost" together are approximately equal to "Technical/Management." RFP sect. M-3.d. Under the technical/management evaluation area, the RFP identified several detailed evaluation factors and subfactors; however, these details are not relevant to this decision as there is no challenge to the evaluation under these factors or subfactors. Under the past performance/experience area--the area that is largely the focus of this protest--the RFP advised that past performance and experience would be "approximately equal in importance." RFP sect. M-6.a. In preparing their proposals, offerors were required to identify for evaluation between three and five prior contracts similar to the ASC contract. RFP sect. L-12.c.3. In addition, offerors were required to identify three similar contracts for any of the offeror's major subcontractors (defined as any subcontractor expected to perform at least 10 percent of the work). RFP sect.sect.