Information Network Systems, Inc., B-284854; B-284854.2, June 12, 2000

Information Network Systems, Inc., B-284854; B-284854.2, June 12, 2000 TITLE: Information Network Systems, Inc., B-284854; B-284854.2, June 12, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284854; B-284854.2 DATE: June 12, 2000 ********************************************************************** Information Network Systems, Inc., B-284854; B-284854.2, June 12, 2000 Decision Matter of: Information Network Systems, Inc. File: B-284854; B-284854.2 Date: June 12, 2000 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., John C. Lavorato, Esq., and, Michael D. Garson, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester. Charles W. Mahan, Esq., Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, for MacAulay Brown, Inc., an intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., and William Landsberg, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that discussions were not meaningful is denied where the record shows that the agency's questions clearly indicated that certain proposed labor rates were considered too low, and identified the evaluators' concerns that these rates could have an adverse impact on workforce retention. 2. In evaluation of offers for a service contract where the agency placed a strong premium on retaining the incumbent workforce, protester's contention that the agency unreasonably assessed its proposal as high risk under workforce retention subfactor is denied where the evaluation was made in accordance with stated evaluation criteria, and where the record shows that the protester's proposed labor rates are lower than those rates paid to incumbent employees under the previous contracts, and the proposal contained seemingly inconsistent promises to retain 100 percent of all incumbent personnel with salaries at, or above, their previous level, and to do so without exceeding proposed costs. 3. Contention that a tradeoff decision violated the stated evaluation scheme because the selection official concluded that the protester's advantage under the most important evaluation factor was outweighed by the proposal's high risk under a less important evaluation subfactor is denied where the selection official reasonably concluded that the difference between the two proposals under the most important evaluation factor was relatively insignificant, while a detailed review of the two proposals showed that their underlying differences supported the risk assessment, and led the selection official to have greater confidence that the awardee's proposal would be more able to achieve the workforce retention goals of the agency. DECISION Information Network Systems, Inc. (INS) protests the award of a contract to MacAulay Brown, Inc. (MBI) by the Department of the Air Force, pursuant to request for proposals F08635-00-R-0001, issued to procure technical and acquisition management support for the Air Armament Center and other organizations at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. INS argues that the selection of MBI was improperly based on an unreasonable assessment of proposal risk, and a flawed best value decision. In addition, INS argues that the Air Force failed to hold meaningful discussions, failed to perform a proper cost realism review, and treated offerors unequally. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Armament Center at Eglin AFB is responsible for developing, acquiring, testing and evaluating a wide array of weapons systems, including conventional munitions, missiles, range equipment, aerial targets, guided munitions, air base operability equipment, electronic combat systems, and navigation/guidance systems. Statement of Work (SOW), RFP, attach. 1, at 4. This RFP, issued October 1, 1999, seeks a supplemental civilian workforce of non-engineering acquisition management support personnel (an estimated 340 staff-years of effort) to help the Air Force meet the workload requirements associated with procuring the above-described systems. RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP at 18. The RFP anticipates the award of two cost-plus-award-fee task order contracts--one reserved for a participant in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) set-aside program, and one reserved for a small business--for a 3-year base period, followed by two 1-year options. RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP at 4-5. The RFP advises that award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government. RFP at M-1. To determine best value, the RFP identifies four evaluation factors: past performance, mission capability, proposal risk, and cost/price. RFP at M-2. These four factors are listed in descending order of importance, except that mission capability and proposal risk are of equal importance.