Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3, December 16, 1999

Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3, December 16, 1999 TITLE: Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3, December 16, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3 DATE: December 16, 1999 ********************************************************************** Advanced Communication Systems, Inc., B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3, December 16, 1999 Decision Matter of: Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. File: B-283650; B-283650.2; B-283650.3 Date: December 16, 1999 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., and Daniel A Silien, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., an intervenor. Jean Lewis, Esq., Peter D. Butt, Jr., Esq., and Kevin Travis, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Allegation that agency's cost realism analysis was flawed because it failed to consider differences in direct labor rates between the awardee's proposed rates and the protester's higher rates is denied, where the record shows that the agency reasonably relied on reviews and recommendations by Defense Contract Audit Agency of the awardee's direct labor hourly rates, and the agency reasonably determined that the projected cost of awardee's performance presented no technical risk. 2. Allegation that awardee engaged in prohibited "bait and switch" tactic is denied where there is no showing that the offeror knowingly or negligently made any misrepresentation regarding employees that it did not expect to furnish during contract performance. 3. Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated its proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' ratings. DECISION Advanced Communication Systems, Inc. (ACS) protests the award of contracts to the team led by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-99-R-3205(Q), issued by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), Department of the Navy, for support services for systems located at fixed sites and mobile platforms. [1] ACS challenges the selection decision on numerous grounds, primarily arguing that SPAWAR's cost realism analysis of Booz-Allen's proposal was flawed and that SPAWAR misevaluated ACS's technical proposal. [2] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 16, 1999, contemplated the award of up to five cost reimbursement, level-of-effort type contracts, with fixed and award fee provisions, for a base period with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP sect. B. The RFP estimated the level of effort at 1.2 million direct labor hours per year. Id. sect. L-2(h). Offerors were required to submit a written proposal in two separate volumes and make an oral presentation. Id. sect. L para. 2.4, at 53. Volume I of the written proposal was to consist of (1) corporate experience and past performance information; (2) personnel resumes; (3) small, small disadvantaged, and woman-owned small business participation; and (4) briefing charts for the oral presentation. The oral presentation was to address the offeror's technical and management approach; sample tasks; and small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business participation. Volume II was the cost proposal. Id. The RFP required that the functional areas of the statement of work (SOW) be accomplished by a team of contractors; each competing team was to describe in its proposal how the SOW would be assigned among the various team members. Offerors were also instructed to include a matrix in their proposals cross-referencing each numbered SOW paragraph to a specific team member. [3] The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate each team's proposal in the following two areas: (1) team competence/composition and (2) cost. Within the first area, the RFP listed the following factors of equal importance: technical and management approach; sample tasks; small business participation; corporate experience and past performance; and personnel resumes. Id. sect. M-1. The RFP stated that the technical evaluation factors would be considered significantly more important than cost, and that the agency would select the responsible team whose proposal conformed to the RFP's requirements and represented the best value to the government. Id. The RFP explained that after the agency selected a team based on the results of the evaluation, the government would award a separate contract to each member of the selected team; the SOWs of each of those separate contracts would be consistent with how the team divided the work in its proposal. Id. sect.