TyeCom, Inc., B-287321.3; B-287321.4, April 29, 2002

TyeCom, Inc., B-287321.3; B-287321.4, April 29, 2002 TITLE: TyeCom, Inc., B-287321.3; B-287321.4, April 29, 2002 BNUMBER: B-287321.3; B-287321.4 DATE: April 29, 2002 ********************************************************************** TyeCom, Inc., B-287321.3; B-287321.4, April 29, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: TyeCom, Inc. File: B-287321.3; B-287321.4 Date: April 29, 2002 Howard Stanislawski, Esq., and Richard L. Larach, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, for the protester. Moses Harvin, for American Services Technology, Inc., an intervenor. Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Timothy Fischer, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against proposal reevaluation is denied where the reevaluation was performed by the agency in response to, and consistent with, corrective action suggested during alternate dispute resolution conducted in conjunction with a predecessor protest of the same procurement to the General Accounting Office, and the protester has not provided any persuasive evidence that the reevaluation was improper or unreasonable. DECISION TyeCom, Inc. protests the award of a contract to American Services Technology, Inc. (ASTI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP09-00SR22183, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business (SDB) set‑aside for administrative facility support services at DOE's Savannah River Operations Office. TyeCom contends that the agency's most recent technical and cost evaluation is *fatally flawed.* Protest at 1. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement has had a protracted history, commencing with DOE's issuance of the solicitation on March 18, 2000. On February 15, 2001, the agency initially selected [deleted] proposal for award from amongst a final competitive range consisting of three proposals, the others of which were the TyeCom and ASTI proposals. TyeCom protested the award determination to our Office on February 26, whereupon the agency determined to reopen discussions and, on March 6, TyeCom withdrew this protest.[1] After conducting additional discussions and providing the offerors an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions (FPR), the DOE source evaluation panel (SEP) evaluated TyeCom's proposal as *acceptable* with a proposed cost-plus-fee of $8,003,798. ASTI's proposal was evaluated as *exceptional* with a proposed cost-plus-fee of $8,921,239. Agency Report, B-287321.2, Aug. 10, 2001 (AR.2), Tab 4, Source Selection Decision, at 1-2. The two offerors had proposed virtually the identical existing workforce, with the exception of three managers. The SSO reasoned that since TyeCom's proposal had been evaluated as *acceptable* by the SEP, *from a technical standpoint, TyeCom should be successful in performance,* and also believed that *[since] TyeCom has accepted indirect rate ceiling rates, which protect the Government against increased indirect costs (an eventuality I consider likely), cost risk is reduced to an acceptable level.* Id. at 2. In these circumstances, the SSO decided that *[i]n terms of the evaluation criteria of the RFP, Tyecom would be in line to receive the award.* Id. However, the SSO questioned TyeCom's responsibility based on other available information, including that TyeCom had done very little business during the [deleted] years that it had been in the 8(a) program, had been, [deleted], essentially dormant for the past [deleted], had no [deleted] for the year [deleted], and had [deleted] current business and only [deleted] employee, [deleted]. Id. at 2-3. As a result, the SSO requested the Small Business Administration (SBA) to review TyeCom's responsibility under SBA's certificate of competency (COC) procedures. SBA issued a COC for TyeCom on July 2, 2001, after which DOE determined to make award to TyeCom. In particular, the SSO determined that TyeCom's lower technically rated, lower cost proposal was in line for award on the basis that: *the overall advantage the 'Exceptional' rated proposal of ASTI represents over the 'Acceptable' rated proposal of Tyecom is one of degree. . . . [T]he incremental increase in overall performance potential represented by the ASTI offer does not warrant the increased cost of $917,441.* AR.2, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision Addendum, July 17, 2001, at 4. On July 27, after receiving a debriefing, ASTI protested this award determination to our Office.