S3 LTD, B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3, September 14, 2001

S3 LTD, B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3, September 14, 2001 TITLE: S3 LTD, B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3, September 14, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3 DATE: September 14, 2001 ********************************************************************** S3 LTD, B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3, September 14, 2001 Decision Matter of: S3 LTD File: B-287019.2; B-287019.3; B-287021.2; B-287021.3 Date: September 14, 2001 Robert A. Klimek, Esq., Nicholas H. Cobbs, Esq., and Darrell Craft, Esq., Klimek, Kolodney & Casale, for the protester. Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Walter T. Camp, Esq., and David W. Lannetti, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for MANCON, Inc., an intervenor. Philip E. Adams, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, 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 contention that an agency conducted misleading discussions by orally changing the terms of the solicitation is denied because, even if the agency made the claimed change, offerors cannot reasonably rely on an oral modification to a solicitation which is inconsistent with its written terms, absent a written amendment, or confirmation of the modification, as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.206(f). 2. Protester's assertion that an awardee's outstanding past performance rating is unreasonable as it was partially based on the responses of an agency reference who provided a photocopy of identical performance ratings and narrative responses as an answer to a request for his assessment of the awardee's performance under each of four separate contracts is denied where the record shows that, while the reference's approach was less than ideal, his answers were consistent with the answers of other references, and consistent with his responses in a telephonic interview conducted by the contract specialist, and where there is no showing that the photocopied responses were inaccurate for any of the four contracts. DECISION S3 LTD protests the award of two contracts to MANCON, Inc., by the Department of the Navy's Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to requests for proposals (RFP) Nos. N68836-00-R-0012 and N68836-00-R-0025, for personnel support services. S3 argues that the Navy failed to hold meaningful discussions by improperly encouraging the company to raise its direct labor rates to the point where it was no longer the lowest-priced offeror for these contracts. S3 also argues that the Navy misevaluated both its and the awardee's past performance. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The Navy issued these solicitations to procure certain personnel support services for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies in transition as a result of being reorganized, realigned, streamlined, or closed, due to regionalization, consolidation of functions, or cost comparison studies conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. These support services are provided by the Fitting Out and Supply Assistance Center, Norfolk, Virginia, under the Navy's Intra Fleet Supply Operations Program. Both solicitations anticipate the purchase of temporary personnel services for various professional and Service Contract Act labor categories, including accounting, information technology, administration, engineering, environmental, finance, logistics, human resources, transportation, child care, mechanical trades, custodial, food service, clerical, drafting, electronics, library services, laboratory services, social services, and hazardous material services. Agency Report (AR) at 3. These solicitations are similar, with the differences related to the geographical areas covered by each: RFP No. N68836-00-R-0012 (R-0012) has 2,541 separately priced contract line items (CLIN) covering the eastern United States and Puerto Rico; RFP No. N68836-00-R-0025 (R-0025) has 5,112 CLINs covering the western United States, Guam and Hawaii. Id. The RFPs [1] here anticipated award of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time and materials contracts, for a 1-year base period with two 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. To determine the most advantageous proposal, the RFPs identified four evaluation factors--price/cost, past performance, technical, and subcontracting plan--and advised that each factor was approximately equal in importance. RFPs at 20. Only two of the factors--past performance and technical--were to be given adjectival ratings; a proposal's subcontracting plan was to be assessed as either acceptable or unacceptable, and its price was to be assessed only for reasonableness (after application of a 10-percent price evaluation preference for HUBZone offerors).