COBRO Corporation, B-287578.2, October 15, 2001

B-287578.2 Oct 15, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A-76 is sustained where the solicitation inviting private-sector proposals erroneously required offerors to provide facilities for new inventory rather than making available existing government facilities. To conduct a competition between private-sector offerors as part of a government cost comparison to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract or by government performance was more economical. For which offerors were required to supply their own facilities because the RFP provided that existing government facilities were not available for this purpose. The RFP was amended to provide that proposals would be evaluated on these same three factors. The RFP stated that the successful offeror was to be selected on the basis of the "proposal . . . determined to offer the best overall value to the government based upon the evaluation criteria.". View Decision COBRO Corporation, B-287578.2, October 15, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION COBRO Corporation protests the Army Materiel Command's decision, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, that it would be more economical to perform T-53 series aircraft engine materiel management functions in-house rather than to contract for these services with COBRO under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH23-99-R-108. COBRO challenges the adequacy of the agency's comparison of the performance provided under the government's most efficient organization (MEO), as reflected in the government's technical performance plan (TPP), with the performance offered under COBRO'S proposal. COBRO primarily protests the solicitation's storage facilities specification for new inventory, and the concomitant understated inventory storage costs under the adjusted MEO, and also alleges that the agency improperly failed to adjust the MEO costs to account for the technical superiority offered under COBRO's proposal. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On August 17, 1999, the Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, issued the instant RFP as a total small business set-aside, to conduct a competition between private-sector offerors as part of a government cost comparison to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract or by government performance was more economical. The RFP sought proposals to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, material, supervision and other items and services necessary to provide logistic support requirements and priorities for the T-53 engine program, in accordance with the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS). RFP Sec. A, at 5. The PWS included a requirement to provide new inventory storage, for which offerors were required to supply their own facilities because the RFP provided that existing government facilities were not available for this purpose. The initial RFP stated that the successful offeror would be selected on the basis of the proposal offering the best value to the government based on technical, price and past performance factors, with the technical factor more important than the other two factors combined. RFP Secs. M-2(A), M-4. The RFP was amended to provide that proposals would be evaluated on these same three factors, but with technical acceptability to be assessed on a "go/no go" basis, and price and past performance approximately equal in importance. RFP amend. 7, Sec. M-3(A). As amended, the RFP stated that the successful offeror was to be selected on the basis of the "proposal . . . determined to offer the best overall value to the government based upon the evaluation criteria." Id. Sec.-M-5. After reading this amendment, one prospective offeror raised the following point: "Our interpretation . . . is that, assuming the Government-continuation option is more expensive than one or more offerors, and one or more offerors meet the Technical 'GO' status, the determination will go automatically to the lowest price. There really is no other 'Best Value' consideration to provide a distinction between the lowest bidder and all others." RFP amend. 8, at 4. The agency reply, provided by amendment to the RFP, stated: "Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria of Technical Acceptability, Price and Past Performance, which is found in Section M. Therefore, award may be made to other than the low offeror." Id. Proposals were submitted by two offerors, Radian and COBRO by the December 10, 1999, closing date. The agency conducted protracted discussions with the offerors until February 2, 2001, after which revised final proposals were requested and were received on February 7. COBRO's proposed price was $11,389,427 and Radian's price was $26,406,361.