The Jones/Hill Joint Venture--Costs, B-286194.3, March 27, 2001

B-286194.3 Mar 27, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Jones/Hill Joint Venture requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in filing and pursuing its protest challenging the Department of the Navy's determination, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, that it would be more economical to perform base operations and support services in-house at the Naval Air Station, Lemoore, California, rather than contract for these services with Jones/Hill under request for proposals No. N62474-98-R-2069. We recommend that the Navy reimburse Jones/Hill the reasonable costs for filing and pursuing its protest. View Decision Matter of: The Jones/Hill Joint Venture--Costs File: B-286194.3 Date: March 27, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Jones/Hill Joint Venture requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in filing and pursuing its protest challenging the Department of the Navy's determination, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, that it would be more economical to perform base operations and support services in-house at the Naval Air Station, Lemoore (NASL), California, rather than contract for these services with Jones/Hill under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62474-98-R-2069. We recommend that the Navy reimburse Jones/Hill the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest. The Navy issued the RFP on May 5, 1999, as part of an OMB Circular No. A-76 cost comparison study, to determine whether it would be more economical to perform base operations support and real property maintenance and operations services for the NASL in-house, using government employees, or under contract with a private-sector firm. The solicitation provided that a best value offer would be selected in accordance with the terms of the RFP, and "compared to the government's `in-house' proposal" in accordance with the terms of OMB Circular No. A-76 and its supplements, to determine if contractor or in-house performance of the services was more economical. RFP Sec. A. The RFP explained that the best value private-sector offer proposal would be selected according to a three-step process. RFP at M-2. In the first step, responding firms would submit proposals detailing their respective past performance, corporate capabilities, and past commitment to small business, which would be evaluated under corresponding evaluation factors, each considered equal in importance. RFP at L-14-16, M-2. The RFP provided that the three most qualified offerors, as determined by the agency during step I of the evaluation process, would be invited to participate in step II of the evaluation process. RFP at M-2. Step II of the evaluation process required the offerors to submit a written technical proposal, consisting of three volumes, and give an oral presentation. RFP at L-17, M-2. The RFP provided that volume I of the technical proposal was to include the contractor's statement of requirements (SOR), prepared in accordance with a workbook provided by the agency as part of the solicitation package. /1/ The solicitation specified that each contractor's SOR was to include, among other things, "the contract sub-requirements their firm[] shall perform to achieve the required mandatory requirement and the stated outcome" provided in the RFP, as well as the performance metrics "by which successful accomplishment of every mandatory and proposed contract requirement and sub-requirement can be measured to determine that it has been successfully met." Each offeror's SOR was also to include the applicable units of work, quantities and frequencies for performance of the units of work, and quality performance standards that the contractor proposed to meet (such as "[r]espond within 30 minutes"). The RFP noted here that the selected best value proposal's SOR "will be reviewed and used in adjusting the Government's [in-house] Technical Performance Plan to ensure it offers the same level of performance and performance quality which is equivalent to the best value commercial proposal." RFP at L-17-18. Volume II of the technical proposal was to include the offeror's "technical and management approach to be used to achieve and/or exceed the Government's required outcomes." This volume was to address, among other things, the offeror's strategic plan, technical approach, management approach, and proposed subcontracting goals. RFP at L-18-22. Volume III was to include the offeror's price proposal. RFP at L-22. The solicitation explained that step III of the evaluation process would consist of the agency's evaluation of the offerors' step II technical proposals under the following factors: management and technical approach, small business commitment, and price.