TDF Corporation, B-288392; B-288392.2, October 23, 2001

TDF Corporation, B-288392; B-288392.2, October 23, 2001 TITLE: TDF Corporation, B-288392; B-288392.2, October 23, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288392; B-288392.2 DATE: October 23, 2001 ********************************************************************** TDF Corporation, B-288392; B-288392.2, October 23, 2001 Decision Matter of: TDF Corporation File: B-288392; B-288392.2 Date: October 23, 2001 George Shreves for the protester. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, Samuel J. Walker, Esq., and Bernadine F. McGuire, Esq., U.S. Army Operations Support Command, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where agency's evaluation record provides extensive analysis regarding protester's proposed staffing, and protester, after having been provided with the entire evaluation record, does not challenge the accuracy of the agency's calculations, agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as unacceptable on the basis of inadequate staffing. 2. Agency properly eliminated protester's proposal from consideration on the basis of its inadequate proposed staffing where solicitation specifically directed offerors to address the staffing of the various contract requirements, advised offerors that their proposed staffing approach would be a subject for evaluation, stated that a proposal which failed to provide a proposed approach that would successfully meet the contract requirements would be rated as "unacceptable," and provided that any such proposal would be eliminated from the competition. 3. GAO will not sustain protest on the basis of a potential conflict of interest, where protester fails to identify any meaningful flaw or inaccuracy in the agency's evaluation of its proposal and GAO's review of the evaluation record demonstrates that protester was not prejudiced by the potential conflict of interest. DECISION TDF Corporation protests the Department of the Army's determination that TDF's proposal to perform information technology (IT) base operation support services for Rock Island Arsenal (RIA) failed to meet the solicitation requirements. TDF protests that the agency evaluation failed to properly apply the stated evaluation factors and that members of the agency evaluation team had a conflict of interest. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 25, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, the agency issued solicitation No. DAAA09-00-R-5047 in order to select a private contractor to compete with the agency's most efficient organization (MEO) under the A-76 cost comparison process. [1] Thereafter, TDF engaged in various communications with the agency, including an agency-level protest challenging various aspects of the solicitation. The agency responded to TDF's various concerns, including the protest, by issuing several solicitation amendments. As finally amended, the solicitation provided for selection of a private sector proposal based on the following evaluation factors: management approach, technical, small business use, past performance, financial capability and cost/price. [2] Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated on an "acceptable/unacceptable" basis with regard to the management approach, technical, and small business evaluation factors, [3] and that any proposal rated as "unacceptable" under any factor would be disqualified from the competition. RFP sect. M.1.2. Finally, the solicitation provided that past performance would be rated adjectivally, that cost/price and past performance were approximately equal in importance, and that the agency would perform a trade-off between cost/price and past performance with regard to proposals that were rated acceptable under the other evaluation factors. TDF's proposal, which it submitted by the March 23, 2001 closing date, was the only one submitted by a private sector offeror. Thereafter, as required by the solicitation, TDF provided an oral presentation to the agency. [4] The agency then performed a preliminary evaluation of TDF's proposal and concluded that it contained numerous deficiencies. By letter dated April 24, the contracting officer advised TDF of the results of its evaluation stating: The Source Selection Board for this acquisition has completed their initial review of offers received and the results of that review indicate that your proposal, as submitted, contains serious inadequacies that need to be addressed. At this time, the government has decided to include your proposal in the competitive range of this competition. However, be advised that unless basic defects are resolved, your proposal may be removed from the competitive range and further consideration in this competition. . . . . . To begin the discussion process, a summary of these inadequacies is included as Enclosure 1.