Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000

Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000 TITLE: Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285828; B-285828.2 DATE: October 11, 2000 ********************************************************************** Redcon, Inc., B-285828; B-285828.2, October 11, 2000 Decision Matter of: Redcon, Inc. File: B-285828; B-285828.2 Date: October 11, 2000 Clark B. Fetzer, Esq., and Bryan H. Booth, Esq., Kirton & McConkie, for the protester. Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., John C. Dulske, Esq., and Valinda J. Astoria, Esq., Thurman & Phillips, for SciTech Services, Inc., an intervenor. Steven W. Feldman, Esq., and Craig R. Schmauder, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the protest evidences the protester's mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation and there is no basis on which to find that the evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Protest of the best value analysis is denied where the protest is predicated on the assumption that the underlying technical and price evaluations were erroneous, but the record shows that the evaluation results were reasonable. DECISION Redcon, Inc. protests the award of a contract, on the basis of initial proposals, to SciTech Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-00-R-0008, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center, as a total small business set-aside to maintain a data acquisition system and to provide technical support for the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS). Redcon, the incumbent contractor, contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals and its award decision were unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND CAMDS was created to facilitate the testing of prototype chemical demilitarization and disposal equipment and methods, and to facilitate the destruction of stockpile and non-stockpile material. The two principal areas of the CAMDS mission are the compilation of technical data and compliance with the regulatory and Army requirements for an environmentally safe operation. To this end, the RFP called for an array of services, including data collection, computer input, data reduction, data retrieval, environmental regulatory compliance, statistical analyses, hardware and software maintenance, plant calibration support, contractor escorting, and safety engineering. RFP at 18-21. As amended, the RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials contract for a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that the agency intended to award a contract without discussions to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value, after evaluation of technical factors and price. In making the best value determination, the RFP stated that technical evaluation criteria and price considerations were approximately equal. Id. at 62. The technical factors and subfactors were listed as: 1. Past Performance 1. Satisfied specifications 2. Adhered to schedule 3. Hired and retained appropriate personnel 4. Managed and monitored subcontractors and material suppliers 5. Committed to customer satisfaction 2. Experience 1. Data Acquisition, storage, retrieval, analysis, and reporting 2. Environmental program management 3. Computer/ADP program management 4. Technical writing and documentation management 5. Safety engineering, plant calibration, and material expediting 3. Technical Approach 1. Ability to meet the required work schedule 2. Quality Control/Quality Assurance 3. Familiarity with data acquisition, environmental program management, computer/ADP program management, technical writing and document management, safety engineering, plant calibration, and materials expediting 4. Management and Personnel 1. Key personnel experience 2. Transition plan 3. Organization and Management plan 5. Price RFP at 63-64. The RFP stated that past performance was more important than experience, and that experience was more important than technical approach which was more important than management and personnel. The RFP further stated that the subfactors were of equal importance within each factor. Proposals were to be evaluated under an adjectival rating scale of exceptional (E), good (G), acceptable (A), marginal (M) and unacceptable (U). [1] Price proposals were to be evaluated to determine reasonableness and affordability.