SDS International, B-285821, September 21, 2000

B-285821 Sep 21, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing discussions that "spoon-feed" an offeror each item that must be addressed to improve a proposal. Agencies are only required to lead offerors into the areas of their proposals considered deficient and requiring amplification. SDS argues that the agency improperly failed to conduct meaningful discussions with SDS and maintains that the agency's best value determination was flawed. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Who was the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement. Noted that SDS's and NLX's proposals were highly rated and. The SSA noted that the primary difference between NLX's and SDS's proposals was the [DELETED]. View Decision Matter of: SDS International File: B-285821 Date: September 21, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SDS International protests the award of a contract to NLX Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-00-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-4 aircrew training and courseware development for the German Air Force contingent assigned to Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. SDS argues that the agency improperly failed to conduct meaningful discussions with SDS and maintains that the agency's best value determination was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued March 7, 2000 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-priced contract for a phase-in period, a base year, and up to four 1-year option periods. The statement of work (SOW) divided the specific tasks into three categories (1) contract aircrew training (CAT), (2) courseware development (CWD), and (3) general tasks. The RFP listed past performance, mission capability, risk, and price as evaluation factors, with the past performance and mission capability factors considered of "primary and equal importance." SOW Sec. 9, Para. 1, at 22. Within the mission capability factor, the RFP also listed the following three subfactors in descending order of importance: program and workload management (PWM), instructional systems development (ISD) management plan, and phase-in. The RFP explained that in assessing each offeror's past performance, evaluators would assign an adjectival rating ranging from "unsatisfactory/no confidence" to "exceptional/high confidence." The RFP further explained that each subfactor within the mission capability area would be assigned a color and adjectival rating (red/unacceptable, yellow/marginal, green/acceptable, or blue/exceptional). Proposals would also be assigned risk ratings at the subfactor level (low, moderate, or high) to reflect the strengths and weaknesses associated with each offeror's proposed approach. The RFP stated that price would not be numerically scored but would be evaluated for reasonableness. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Five offerors, including SDS and NLX, responded to the RFP by the time set on April 7 for receipt of initial proposals. A source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated proposals; the agency conducted discussions; and the SSET reevaluated final proposal revisions, with the following results for the protester and the awardee: Mission Capability Past PWM/Risk ISD/Risk Phase-in/Risk Price Perf./Conf. SDS Very Green/Mod. Blue/Low Green/Low $3,749,321 Good/Sign. NLX Very Green/Low Blue/Low Green/Low 3,851,160 Good/Sign. Agency Report (AR) at 2; and AR exh. 13, Proposal Evaluation Report (PER), attach. 2, Rating Team Worksheets. Based on the results of the final evaluation the SSET recommended that NLX be awarded the contract. In reviewing that recommendation, the contracting officer (CO), who was the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, noted that SDS's and NLX's proposals were highly rated and, with the exception of the risk rating under the PWM subfactor, both proposals earned identical ratings across all evaluation factors. The SSA noted that the primary difference between NLX's and SDS's proposals was the [DELETED]. In this regard, the SSA found that [DELETED]. Noting this difference, as well as other strengths the evaluators identified in NLX's proposal, the SSA concluded that NLX's proposal was most advantageous to the government, and awarded the contract to that firm. This protest followed a debriefing by the agency. PROTEST ISSUES In its initial protest, SDS primarily challenged the evaluation of its proposal under the PWM subfactor, arguing that the "moderate" risk rating assigned its proposal was inconsistent with the agency's evaluation of SDS's performance on another recent contract for CAT services and with the RFP's criteria.