RS Information Systems, Inc., B-287185.2; B-287185.3, May 16, 2001

RS Information Systems, Inc., B-287185.2; B-287185.3, May 16, 2001 TITLE: RS Information Systems, Inc., B-287185.2; B-287185.3, May 16, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287185.2; B-287185.3 DATE: May 16, 2001 ********************************************************************** RS Information Systems, Inc., B-287185.2; B-287185.3, May 16, 2001 Decision Matter of: RS Information Systems, Inc. File: B-287185.2; B-287185.3 Date: May 16, 2001 Mary Beth Bosco, Esq., Norah D. Molnar, Esq., and T. Michael Guiffr�, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. Kenneth J. Ingram, Esq., and Michael A. Stover, Esq., Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, for STG, Inc., an intervenor. Carol A. Cowgill, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where flaws in original cost evaluation require agency to reopen competition, prior disclosure of awardee's contract price and request for revised cost proposals do not create an improper auction. 2. Allegation that agency misled protester by advising it that its original evaluated cost was lowest among all offerors, is denied where agency's detailed cost discussions provided protester with all information necessary to prepare competitive offer; protester's decision not to submit lower cost proposal reflects its own business judgment and was not the result of misleading advice from the agency. DECISION RS Information Systems, Inc. (RSIS) protests the award of a contract to STG, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-HQ-99-16699, a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for telecommunications support services. RSIS challenges several aspects of the procurement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND EPA issued this solicitation in 1999 for telecommunications support services for EPA's headquarters in Washington, D.C., its 10 regional offices, and numerous laboratory and field sites. Work under the contract was to be accomplished pursuant to delivery orders covering six functional areas: (1) telecommunication installation, operations, and maintenance; (2) computer services/software; (3) service center operation; (4) advisory/assistance services; (5) design services; and (6) turn-key projects. The RFP contemplated the award of a level-of-effort (LOE), cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The RFP did not prescribe labor categories or labor mix; instead, offerors were required to propose the combination of labor categories they would use to provide cost effective services. Proposals also were to include a narrative detailing the offeror's strategy for performing the functional areas and to demonstrate an understanding of the work and appropriate labor mix. RFP sect. L.11.4.2. To assist offerors, the RFP included historical estimates of the LOE and percentages for each of the areas and "plug" costs for three of the areas. Proposals were to be evaluated for corporate experience on a pass/fail basis, and under four technical evaluation factors on a best value basis: past performance (20 of 100 available points); technical proposal (40 points); key personnel/oral presentations (25 points); and start-up plan (15 points). RFP sect. M.4. With regard to the cost evaluation, the RFP provided that EPA would perform a cost realism analysis, with unrealistic cost proposals evaluated in a risk assessment. RFP sect.sect. M.2, M.5. Overall, technical factors were considered more important than cost factors. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the greatest overall value to the government. RFP sect. M.3. Four offerors, including RSIS and STG, submitted proposals by the November 29, 1999 closing time. After evaluating the technical proposals and oral presentations, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) concluded that none of the four had any weaknesses or deficiencies. In its cost evaluation, the agency adjusted some of the offerors' proposed costs upward to arrive at a most probable cost. Because the top three technical proposals, including those of RSIS and STG, were very close in score, and RSIS's proposal offered the lowest proposed and evaluated cost, EPA made award to RSIS without discussions. Based on cost questions from an unsuccessful offeror, and EPA's belated discovery that RSIS's proposal did not include needed optional quantities of hours, the contracting officer reviewed the entire cost evaluation. This review disclosed a number of flaws in the assumptions made by the offerors in proposing the optional LOE quantities and costs, and in EPA's use of plug numbers. [1] Accordingly, the agency terminated RSIS's contract for convenience (as of February 2001) and provided the firm a debriefing comparable to those the other offerors had received following the award to RSIS.