Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech, B-283793.5; B-283793.6, March 20, 2000

Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech, B-283793.5; B-283793.6, March 20, 2000 TITLE: Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech, B-283793.5; B-283793.6, March 20, 2000 BNUMBER: B-283793.5; B-283793.6 DATE: March 20, 2000 ********************************************************************** Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech, B-283793.5; B-283793.6, March 20, 2000 Decision Matter of: Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc. File: B-283793.5; B-283793.6 Date: March 20, 2000 Dean M. Dilley, Esq., Douglas C. Proxmire, Esq., and Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Patton Boggs, for Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc., and Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., the protesters. Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for Systems Engineering & Security, Inc., an intervenor. David H. Turner, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's evaluation of technical proposals and the subsequent award decision cannot be found reasonable where the evaluation record includes only minimal information and conclusory statements and the agency fails to provide documentation or other explanations that reasonably support the overall assessments of the two protesters' and the awardee's proposals. 2. Agency's adjustment of proposed costs is not reasonable where it is essentially based on agency's misunderstanding of the proposal. DECISION Future-Tec Management Systems, Inc. and Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc. (CHM) protest the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Systems Engineering and Security, Inc. (SES) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 00140-99-R-G413, issued by the Navy Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC)-Norfolk Detachment Philadelphia. Both Future-Tec and CHM protest that the Navy's evaluation of technical proposals and the resulting source selection were improperly performed, and allege that SES proposed key personnel that it knew or should have known would not work full time on the project, as required by the RFP. In addition, CHM protests that the Navy's cost realism analysis was improper, and resulted in an unreasonable and arbitrary increase in CHM's evaluated proposed costs. We sustain the protests. The RFP was issued on June 25, 1999, by the FISC office on behalf of the Navy Reserve Information Systems Office and the Systems Executive Office for Manpower and Personnel, both located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The RFP explained that these offices have been tasked to develop world class software products and to market their capability to new customers, and sought offers for a broad range of automated information system support and infrastructure services for these offices. The RFP, issued as a competitive procurement set aside for small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, under which services would be ordered by delivery or task orders. The RFP provided that the government intended to make an award to the offeror whose proposal presented the best value to the government, and stated that a proposal's technical merit would be considered more important than cost. The solicitation listed the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance, stating that the first two would be considered equal in weight: corporate experience, past performance, technical approach, management plan, and personnel resources. RFP sect. M. Offerors were instructed to prepare their technical proposals in two volumes, with the first volume to include written descriptions of the offeror's past performance and its personnel resources, and the second to include transparencies and slides that would be used during oral presentations, covering technical approach, management approach, and corporate experience. RFP sect. L.I. With respect to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors as follows (in relevant part): [D]escribe . . . past performance on directly related or similar contracts . . . held within the last five (5) years which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. Offerors who describe similar contracts shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of the RFP. In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which are most relevant to the RFP. RFP sect. L.III.A.1, at 51. The personnel resources factor listed key personnel resumes and staffing as subfactors and stated that they were of equal importance.