Summit Research Corporation, B-287523; B-287523.3, July 12, 2001

Summit Research Corporation, B-287523; B-287523.3, July 12, 2001 TITLE: Summit Research Corporation, B-287523; B-287523.3, July 12, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287523; B-287523.3 DATE: July 12, 2001 ********************************************************************** Summit Research Corporation, B-287523; B-287523.3, July 12, 2001 Decision Matter of: Summit Research Corporation File: B-287523; B-287523.3 Date: July 12, 2001 Patricia H. Wittie, Esq., Kurt D. Ferstl, Esq., and David T. Hickey, Esq., Reed Smith, for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, for AverStar, Inc., an intervenor. Robert C. Peterson, Esq., Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging an agency's conclusion that an evaluation of small business participation should reflect only the offeror's reliance on small business subcontractors--and not also whether the offeror is itself a small business--is sustained where the record shows that the evaluation clause at issue, on its face, advised that the agency would assess small business participation, not small business subcontracting, and where the solicitation and the agency's own evaluation forms, request information about, and reflect consideration of, the aggregate use of small business in performance of the total contract. 2. Protest alleging that agency evaluators unreasonably ignored information received from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) advising that one of an offeror's proposed key personnel was no longer employed by the company is sustained where the record shows that the DCAA advised the agency of the employee's departure more than a month before contract award, and the agency took no steps to change its evaluation or consider the impact of the employee's departure, despite acting on several other recommendations provided in the same communication. DECISION Summit Research Corporation protests the award of a contract to AverStar, Inc. by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Department of the Navy pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-00-R00523, issued to procure training for mid- and senior-level operators of sensor-based intelligence gathering equipment used in support of patrol and reconnaissance forces (and other operational Naval commands) of the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. Summit argues that the Navy unreasonably selected AverStar for award due to errors in the agency's technical evaluation and cost realism review. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in Charleston, South Carolina, is responsible for providing systems training and sensor data library support for users throughout the Navy fleet. This training is termed All-Sensor Advanced Analysis Training, while the support functions are termed All Sensor related technical services; both are provided as part of readiness training and support for Navy Command Control Communications Computer and Intelligence (C4I) personnel to ensure a high level of proficiency in sensor analysis skills. RFP at 9. Summit, a small business, is the incumbent contractor providing these training services since the inception of this readiness training program in 1984. Protest at 4. The RFP was issued on June 13, 2000, and anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order type contract, for a base year, followed by four 1-year options, "to the acceptable offeror whose total offer on all items is the most advantageous to the Government considering price and other factors." RFP at 7, 30, 88. To determine the most advantageous proposal, the RFP identified four evaluation factors, which it termed "other factors," presumably in contrast to the cost factor. These other factors were: (1) experience, (2) past performance, (3) personnel qualifications, and (4) small business, small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, and women-owned small business participation (hereinafter "small business participation"). Id. at 89-90, RFP amend. 0003 at 2. The RFP advised offerors that the evaluation factors of experience, past performance, and personnel qualifications were equal in importance, and each was significantly more important than the small business participation factor; it also advised that the evaluation factors above would be significantly more important than cost, but that cost would be an important factor in this evaluation scheme. RFP at 88-89.