SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000

SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000 TITLE: SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285822; B-285822.2 DATE: September 29, 2000 ********************************************************************** SDS International, B-285822; B-285822.2, September 29, 2000 Decision Matter of: SDS International File: B-285822; B-285822.2 Date: September 29, 2000 Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., James S. Phillips, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., and Rachel L. Smith, Esq., Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for CBD Training, Inc., the intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Robert Allen, Esq., and Warren D. Leishman, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably assigned a favorable past performance rating to awardee's proposal based primarily on the experience of one key individual where solicitation specifically stated that in assessing past performance, the agency would consider the experience of key personnel; that individual has extensive, relevant experience; and, as corporate vice president and project manager, that individual will have substantial involvement in managing and overseeing performance of the contract. 2. Protester's contention that the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation and reasonably supports the ratings assigned the protester's and awardee's proposals. 3. Contention that agency improperly evaluated proposed staffing levels against undisclosed staffing levels is denied. Agencies may properly evaluate proposals against an undisclosed reasonable estimate of appropriate staffing, where the solicitation notifies offerors that staffing is an evaluation area and evaluation takes into account the offeror's approach and unique features of the proposal. DECISION SDS International protests the award of a contract to CBD Training, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-00-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for F-117 and T-38 aircrew training and courseware development at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. SDS challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's proposals and argues that the award decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued April 10, 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 six 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 past performance and mission capability considered of "primary and equal importance." SOW sect. 9, para. (a), at 31. Within the mission capability factor, the RFP also listed the following three subfactors in descending order of importance: personnel qualifications and management (PQM), CWD approach and instructional systems development (ISD) management plan, and phase-in process. The RFP 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). The RFP further stated that in assessing each offeror's past performance, evaluators would use a confidence rating scale ranging from "unsatisfactory/no confidence" to "exceptional/high confidence." 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. The RFP warned that the government might award a contract without conducting discussions and cautioned offerors to submit their best proposals initially. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Six offerors, including SDS and CBD, responded to the RFP by the time set on May 4 for receipt of initial proposals, and a source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated proposals with the following results for the protester and the awardee: Mission Capability Past Perf./Conf. PQM/Risk ISD/Risk Phase-in/Risk Price SDS Satisfactory/Conf. Green/Low Green/Low Blue/Low $6,634,127 CBD Exceptional/High Blue/Low Blue/Low Blue/Low $6,929,888 Based on the results of the evaluation, the SSET recommended that CBD be awarded the contract.