Global Readiness Enterprises, B-284714, May 30, 2000

B-284714 May 30, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is denied where agency's evaluation of proposals was consistent with solicitation terms. Which provided that technical evaluation factors were more important than price. Each award will cover all Statement of Work (SOW) technical requirements. Two (2) awards will be Small Business Set-Asides. The third award is planned to be made on an unrestricted basis. The RFP advised small business prime offerors that they were required to perform 51 percent or more of the assigned work within their corporate entity or joint venture agreement. These evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance. The sample task subfactor was composed of six equally weighted sample tasks. View Decision Matter of: Global Readiness Enterprises File: B-284714 Date: May 30, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Global Readiness Enterprises (GRE) protests the award of contracts to Engineering and Professional Services, Inc. (EPS) and ManTech Telecommunications and Information Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-99-R-G752, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), for field support services. GRE challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the agency's selection decisions. We deny the protest. /1/ The RFP, issued on May 4, 1999, contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time and materials contracts to perform Omnibus Logistics and Readiness Field Support Services, for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 3, 59. The RFP's executive summary advised offerors as follows: The government plans to make up to three (3) awards from this solicitation. Each award will cover all Statement of Work (SOW) technical requirements. Two (2) awards will be Small Business Set-Asides, with at least one of these planned awards being made to an 8A Small Disadvantaged Business. The third award is planned to be made on an unrestricted basis. Id. at 2-3. The RFP advised small business prime offerors that they were required to perform 51 percent or more of the assigned work within their corporate entity or joint venture agreement; the balance of assigned work could be performed by team members/subcontractors. Id. at 3. The RFP provided that the awards would be made to the offerors whose proposals offered the best values, considering technical evaluation factors, performance risks, prices, and small business participation plans. These evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance. RFP amend. 1, at 11. The technical evaluation factor included two subfactors--sample tasks and management. As relevant here, the sample task subfactor was composed of six equally weighted sample tasks, which were designed to test the offeror's expertise and capabilities in responding to the types of situations that could be encountered during contract performance. Id. The RFP required offerors to prepare a 45-minute videotape oral presentation in responding to each sample task. Id. at 8-9. Responses to the sample tasks would be evaluated in terms of the offeror's understanding of the task, the feasibility of the offeror's approach, and completeness. Id. at 11. In order to evaluate an offeror's performance risk, the RFP required offerors to describe recent (within the past 3 years) and relevant (in terms of scope) contracts. Id. Concerning price, attachment 2 to the RFP contained a list of 52 labor categories, with an estimated annual level of effort (total off-site and on-site hours) for each category. For each labor category, the RFP directed offerors to provide fully loaded labor rates, which would be multiplied by the corresponding level of effort. The RFP provided that the offeror's estimated other direct costs, plus G&A/material handling costs, would be added for each contract year. The sum of the basic and option years would equal an offeror's total evaluated price. Id. at 12. The RFP provided that the agency would use the labor categories and hours provided in each sample task, along with the rates provided in the price factor, to evaluate the price reasonableness of the sample tasks. Id. The RFP advised that awards would not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offerors. The agency received seven proposals by the closing time on June 11. Only one small disadvantaged business--Offeror D--submitted a proposal. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 2. Three small businesses, including GRE and EPS, and three large businesses, including ManTech, submitted proposals. More specifically, EPS submitted a proposal as a small business prime offeror, with ManTech and two other entities as contributing/supporting team members. Id. at 6. ManTech submitted a proposal as a large business prime offeror for the unrestricted competition, with EPS and another entity as contributing/supporting team members. Id.