Calian Technology (US) Ltd., B-284814, May 22, 2000

B-284814 May 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. Allegations that awardee lacks necessary facility security clearances and is not registered to do business in the states where services are to be provided concern the awardee's responsibility. The affirmative determination of which is not for review by General Accounting Office absent evidence of fraud. BACKGROUND Foreign countries that have purchased the Navy's F/A-18 fighter aircraft for their national air forces require U.S.-based assistance to address issues related to the maintenance and upgrade of the aircraft. View Decision Matter of: Calian Technology (US) Ltd. File: B-284814 Date: May 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Calian Technology (US) Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Kay and Associates, Inc. (KAI), the incumbent, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-99-R-1506, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for administrative, financial, and technical support services for the Kuwait Air Force Liaison Office. Calian primarily challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Foreign countries that have purchased the Navy's F/A-18 fighter aircraft for their national air forces require U.S.-based assistance to address issues related to the maintenance and upgrade of the aircraft. Agency Report (AR) at 1. Calian and KAI currently provide these support services to various countries. KAI has been providing these services to the government of Kuwait under a contract scheduled to expire in 2000. AR, exh. 14. The agency issued the instant RFP to continue providing these services. The RFP, issued August 26, 1999, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time and materials-type contract with reimbursable line items for travel and material. RFP Sec. L, Sec. 52.216-1, at 111. The solicitation contemplated the award of one contract for a base year with up to four 1-year option periods. Id. at 2. The RFP required offerors to provide the support services at three locations as follows: administrative, financial, and technical support at the Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia office; and logistical and administrative support at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and San Antonio, Texas offices. Id. Sec. B. Section M of the RFP listed the following evaluation factors: personnel, technical, management, past performance, and cost/price. The RFP stated that the personnel area was to be considered the most important, while the technical, management, and past performance areas were of equal importance. The RFP stated that cost/price would be considered the least important factor. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Id. Sec. M. Three firms, including the protester and the awardee, responded to the RFP by the time set on October 5 for receipt of proposals. Separate teams of agency personnel evaluated initial proposals by assigning adjectival ratings (unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, highly satisfactory, or outstanding) and risk ratings (low, medium, or high) under each technical evaluation factor. The past performance area was assigned only a risk rating (ranging from "unknown" to "very high"). The evaluation teams then met as a group to arrive at the following consensus ratings for each proposal for the three offerors: Personnel Tech. Mgmt. Past Total Perf. Cost/Price (Risk) Calian Low/ Low/ Medium/ Very $4,966,740 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Low Offeror Medium/ High/ Medium/ Low $4,742,320 B Marginal Marginal Satisfactory KAI Low/Highly Low/Highly Low/Highly Very $4,215,680 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Low AR, exh. 8, Competitive Award Panel Proposal Analysis Report/Minutes, Jan. 11, 2000, at 2. Based on these results, a competitive award panel (CAP) recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that the contract be awarded to KAI. AR, exh. 8. The SSA agreed with that recommendation. AR, exh. 9, SSA Decision Memorandum, Jan. 14, 2000. Accordingly, on February 11, the contracting officer awarded KAI the contract. This protest followed a debriefing by the agency. PROTEST ISSUES Calian primarily challenges the evaluation of its proposal in the management, technical, and personnel areas. Calian also maintains that KAI failed to comply with certain security provisions included in its current contract, which were also included in the instant RFP. The protester further contends that KAI gained an unfair cost/price advantage in the competition. /1/ EVALUATION OF CALIAN'S PROPOSAL Our Office will not engage in an independent evaluation of proposals nor make an independent determination of their relative merits.