Strategic Resources, Inc., B-287398; B-287398.2, June 18, 2001

Strategic Resources, Inc., B-287398; B-287398.2, June 18, 2001 TITLE: Strategic Resources, Inc., B-287398; B-287398.2, June 18, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287398; B-287398.2 DATE: June 18, 2001 ********************************************************************** Strategic Resources, Inc., B-287398; B-287398.2, June 18, 2001 Decision Matter of: Strategic Resources, Inc. File: B-287398; B-287398.2 Date: June 18, 2001 Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for the protester. Robert E. Gregg, Esq., and Karen R. Harbaugh, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Robert J. McMullen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contracting agency reasonably determined that protester's performance under predecessor contract was entitled to greatest weight in its past performance evaluation and that performance of protester's proposed subcontractor on related contracts was entitled to little weight where subcontractor was to perform only approximately 20 percent of the solicited effort. 2. Contracting agency reasonably attributed past performance of subcontractor's subsidiary to the subcontractor where subsidiary and subcontractor share key management personnel. 3. Contracting agency reasonably viewed awardee's proposal as stronger than protester's under management approach factor where awardee furnished more detailed information regarding risk mitigation and staff recruitment procedures in its proposal. DECISION Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI) protests the award of a contract to Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. (MESI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-00-R-4046, issued by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, for academic services in support of the Navy College Program in the western U.S. and the Pacific. SRI contends that the agency misevaluated both MESI's proposal and its own. We deny the protest. The Navy College Program seeks to assist sailors in earning a college degree during their active duty Navy careers, by building, to the maximum extent possible, on the academic credit they earn for Navy training and on-the-job experience. The solicitation here sought services in support of 18 different Navy College Offices located in the western U.S. and Japan. The services include educational counseling, test administration, tuition assistance, computer lab facilitation, education planning, program management, and administrative/clerical assistance. The RFP, which was issued on September 25, 2000 as a competitive set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program, [1] contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The solicitation defined "other" factors as past performance and management approach, and provided that they would be of equal importance in the evaluation. The RFP further provided that in the evaluation of proposals, the risk associated with an offeror's technical proposal would be considered more important than price. Four proposals were received by the November 1 closing date. Agency evaluators rated the technical proposals as follows: Offeror Past Performance Mgmt. Approach Overall Rating MESI Acceptable (LR) Acceptable (HE) Acceptable (MR) [2] SRI Acceptable (LR) Acceptable (MR) Acceptable (LR) Offeror A Acceptable (LR) Acceptable (MR) Acceptable (LR) Offeror B Acceptable (LR) Acceptable (MR) Acceptable (LR) The evaluators ranked MESI's technical proposal first, citing its "strong" management approach section. SRI's technical proposal was ranked second, ahead of offeror A's and offeror B's, "because [SRI is] currently providing services to the Navy under a similar contract." Technical Evaluation Report at 1. Offerors' prices, which were not revealed to the technical evaluators, were as follows: MESI $13,025,729.28 SRI $14,271,309.35 Offeror A $18,676,505.39 Offeror B $23,169,632.49 The source selection authority (SSA) selected MESI's proposal as most advantageous to the government, noting that all four offerors had been rated "essentially the same with mild differentiation within the acceptable range," and, thus, that the best value determination hinged on price. PCO Source Selection Decision Memorandum at 4. The SSA further noted that MESI's management plan was stronger than SRI's, which more than offset any advantage that SRI might have in the area of past performance. Id.