Systems Management, Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc., B-287032.5; B-287032.6, November 19, 2001

Systems Management, Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc., B-287032.5; B-287032.6, November 19, 2001 TITLE: Systems Management, Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc., B-287032.5; B-287032.6, November 19, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287032.5; B-287032.6 DATE: November 19, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Systems Management, Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc. File: B-287032.5; B-287032.6 Date: November 19, 2001 Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Scaldara & Potler, for the protesters. William A. Shook, Esq., and Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas, Meeds, for Coastal Environmental Systems, the intervenor. John D. Inazu, Esq., Gregory Petkoff, Esq., Richard C. Bean, Esq., and Maj. Marc Fox, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision DIGEST 1. Agency was not required to consider in the past performance evaluation the performance of all proposed subcontractors of the offerors or all references submitted by an offeror. 2. Agency reasonably determined, consistent with the stated evaluation factors, that there were strengths in the awardee's higher-priced technical proposal that warranted the award selection based on a cost/technical tradeoff. DECISION Systems Management, Inc. (SMI) and Qualimetrics, Inc. protest an award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity contract to Coastal Environmental Systems under request for proposals (RFP) No. F19628-00-R-0032, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Air Force for a fixed-base weather observation system for the 21st century (OS-21 FBS). [1] The protesters challenge the Air Force's evaluation of their and the awardee's proposals. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The OS-21 FBS represents an integrated system of multiple weather sensors and data automation components that is designed to continually measure the conditions of the environment at military installations in support of flight safety and asset protection. The FBS weather sensors and data automation components will be integrated by the contractor into a fully automated weather observation system that will interface with a number of local communications and weather forecast systems at each site. The evaluation factors listed in the RFP were mission capability (technical), proposal risk, past performance and price. The RFP further provided that, when combined, the technical and past performance factors were more important than price. The agency warned that the contract might be awarded based on a higher-priced offer which offered technical superiority, if the price differential was determined to be worth the technical merit offered over a lower-priced offer. RFP at 41-42. The agency received initial proposals in response to the RFP from Coastal, Qualimetrics, SMI, and Northern NEF, Inc. (NNEF). After written discussions, the agency awarded the contract to Coastal. Both Qualimetrics and SMI protested the award to Coastal to our Office. In Systems Mgmt., Inc.; Qualimetrics, Inc., B-287032.3, B-287032.4, Apr. 16, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 85, our Office sustained these protests, finding that the agency had overstated its minimum needs in requiring that the proposed systems be FAA-certified, and either waived or relaxed this requirement when it made award to Coastal, whose proposed system was not certified. We also noted that the evaluation scheme for past performance apparently inhibited a qualitative evaluation of past performance because the agency had an internal $60 million threshold before the agency would determine whether a contract was considered "very relevant," no matter how otherwise relevant the past performance. Id. at 11 n.18. We recommended that the Air Force amend the RFP to represent its actual needs concerning certification and resolicit. In response to our decision, the agency amended the solicitation to remove the FAA certification requirement and to amend the past performance evaluation criteria. The amendment and a request for proposal revisions were transmitted to the four offerors who had originally responded to the solicitation, all of which then submitted revised proposals. As was the case in the previous evaluation, the proposals were evaluated using a color/adjectival system with extra credit to be given to proposals that exceeded the RFP's threshold requirements. [2] Proposal risk was evaluated to assess the risks associated with the offeror's proposed approach, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. [3] RFP at 42. Past performance was reviewed and each proposal was assigned a past performance rating.