AJT & Associates, Inc., B-284305; B-284305.2, March 27, 2000

AJT & Associates, Inc., B-284305; B-284305.2, March 27, 2000 TITLE: AJT & Associates, Inc., B-284305; B-284305.2, March 27, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284305; B-284305.2 DATE: March 27, 2000 ********************************************************************** AJT & Associates, Inc., B-284305; B-284305.2, March 27, 2000 Decision Matter of: AJT & Associates, Inc. File: B-284305; B-284305.2 Date: March 27, 2000 Rodney A. Grandon, Esq., and Richard M. Stolbach, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. Donald J. Kinlin, Esq., and John H. Beasley, Esq., Thompson Hine & Flory, for Quantum Technology Services, Inc., an intervenor. John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Martin F. McAlwee, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's consideration of the resources and experience of large business subcontractor, in a solicitation restricting competition to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns in accordance with section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (1994), was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Solicitation provisions requiring contractor to furnish, among other personnel, a project manager qualified to sit for professional engineer examination do not constitute definitive responsibility criteria--since they neither set out specific, objective standards for determining an offeror's capability to perform or require offerors to demonstrate compliance prior to award--but are performance obligations, compliance with which is a matter of contract administration. 3. Agency did not mislead high-priced offeror during discussions by advising it only of Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) opinion that the offeror's overhead rate was understated; the agency advised offeror of its concerns based on DCAA opinion, and there was no obligation to advise the protester that its cost/price was higher than that of other offerors, where the agency determined that the cost/price was reasonable for the approach taken. DECISION AJT & Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Quantum Technology Services, Inc. (QTSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08650-99-R-0101, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering services. AJT asserts that the evaluation of QTSI's proposal and the selection decision were flawed primarily because the agency improperly considered the resources of QTSI's large business subcontractor, General Physics Corporation, in its evaluation. We deny the protest. On August 18, 1999, the agency issued the solicitation for a 1-year multitype contract (fixed-price, labor hour, cost-reimbursement, and fixed-price delivery orders) for technical engineering and spacelift services (TESS), with seven 1-year option periods. RFP amend. 4, sect. L, at 1, and amend. 4, sect. B, at 1-8. Each performance period included fixed-price line items for project management services and data, an indefinite-quantity line item for on-call engineering and inspection services, and a line item for subcontract management. RFP sect. B, at 1-8. [1] The successful offeror, whom the agency would select on a best value basis, would provide services including project management, engineering design and analysis, environmental compliance support, and subcontract management. RFP amend. 4, attach. 1, at 1. These services would support repair, modification, and construction of launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, Patrick Air Force Base, and the Jonathan Dickinson and Malabar missile tracking annexes in Florida, Antigua Air Station in the West Indies, Ascension Auxiliary Airfield in the South Atlantic, and Ramey Solar Observatory, Puerto Rico. Id. The RFP provided for conducting the procurement competitively pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (1994), restricting competition to Small Business Administration (SBA) sect. 8(a) firms in the north and south Florida Districts. RFP Cover Letter. It provided for evaluation against four factors--mission capability, past performance, proposal risk, and price. RFP amend. 5, sect. M, at 1. Price would be approximately equal to the other evaluation factors in the selection decision but nonprice factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 5, sect. M, at 1, amend. 4, sect. M, at 5. Factor one, mission capability, contained five subfactors as follows: project management plan, technical support staff, quality control and safety plan, subcontract management, and model project development/execution. [2] RFP amend. 4, sect. M, at 2-4.