U-Tech Services

U-Tech Services TITLE: U-Tech Services Corporation; K-Mar Industries, Inc., B-284183.3; B-284183.4, October 6, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284183.3; B-284183.4 DATE: October 6, 2000 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: U-Tech Services Corporation; K-Mar Industries, Inc. File: B-284183.3; B-284183.4 Date: October 6, 2000 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for U-Tech Services Corporation, and Marilyn H. David, Esq., for K-Mar Industries, Inc., the protesters. Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., and Jonathan M. Bailey, Esq., for Data Monitor Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that agency misevaluated proposals are denied where record shows that agency's assessment of offerors' proposed staffing, past performance and differing technical approaches was reasonable; protesters' disagreement with evaluation results, without more, does not establish that evaluation was unreasonable. DECISION U-Tech Services Corporation and K-Mar Industries, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc. (DMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34650-99-R-0044, issued by the Department of the Air Force for visual information, information management, communications electronics maintenance and technical order maintenance services at Tinker Air Force Base. The protesters assert that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation sought fixed-price offers to perform various skilled services. The solicitation did not require any particular staffing configuration, but instead relied on offerors to propose staffing (outlined in organizational charts) adequate to meet the RFP's performance work statements and quality control plan requirements. Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors: mission capability, past performance/proposal risk and price/cost. Past performance/proposal risk and mission capability were identified as equal in importance. The mission capability factor included four subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: manpower, program management, subcontractor and/or teaming support capability, and quality control. The technical factors combined were more important than price/cost. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the government the best overall value considering cost/price and the technical evaluation factors. The Air Force received several proposals, and after initially evaluating them, engaging in discussions and soliciting initial and second final proposal revisions (FPR), made award to DMS as the firm offering the best overall value to the government. Original Source Selection Decision Document, Nov. 9, 1999. After being advised of the award decision, U-Tech and K-Mar filed protests in our Office (B-284183, B-284183.2) alleging various improprieties in the evaluation and source selection. Subsequently, U-Tech, K-Mar and the Air Force entered into a settlement agreement, under the terms of which the Air Force agreed to take corrective action, including replacing the evaluators, contracting officer and source selection official; the agency then would reevaluate the proposals without holding discussions or permitting revisions, and make a new source selection decision. Agency Report, exh. 4, Settlement Agreement. Based on the Air Force's proposed corrective action, U-Tech and K-Mar withdrew their protests. The agency put new evaluators in place and replaced the contracting officer and source selection official with a single individual. The agency identified deficiencies in the proposals that necessitated opening limited discussions and proposal revisions, notwithstanding the terms of the settlement agreement. These revised proposals--referred to by the agency as ?conformed? proposals--were scored by the new evaluators.[1] Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) Report, Apr. 5, 2000, at 2. The evaluation results were as follows:[2] EVALUATION AREA DMS U-Tech K-Mar Rating/Risk Rating/Risk Rating/Risk MISSION CAPABILITY Staffing Green/Low Green/Low Green/Low Program Mgmt. Green/Low Green/Low Green/Moderate Teaming Support Green/Low Green/Low Green/Low Quality Control Green/Low Green/Low Green/Low PAST PERF./ PERF.