Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-288892; B-288892.2, December 19, 2001

Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-288892; B-288892.2, December 19, 2001 TITLE: Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-288892; B-288892.2, December 19, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288892; B-288892.2 DATE: December 19, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Wyle Laboratories, Inc. File: B-288892; B-288892.2 Date: December 19, 2001 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Jance R. Hawkins, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., and Walter T. Camp, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for the Bionetics Corporation, an intervenor. Gregory Petkoff, Esq., and Paul S. Davison, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 contractor's performance of both a contract for operation of the agency's highest echelon calibration laboratory and a contract for operation of lower echelon calibration laboratories did not pose an organizational conflict of interest where government personnel who are responsible for monitoring and measuring contractor performance under both contracts rely primarily on information other than feedback from other contractors in performing these functions. 2. Protest alleging that agency unreasonably failed to recognize several positive aspects of protester's proposal as strengths is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that agency's assessment of the significance of these aspects of its proposal was unreasonable. 3. Protest alleging that agency should have adjusted awardee's cost proposal upward to account for its offering of a lower fringe benefit rate than the rate paid by the incumbent contractor is denied where agency reasonably determined that the awardee's proposed fringe benefit rate, which was [deleted] the rate required in the Department of Labor wage determination included in the solicitation, was realistic. DECISION Wyle Laboratories, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to the Bionetics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09650-01-R-0203, to operate the Air Force Primary Standards Laboratory (AFPSL) and to develop and distribute calibration technical orders for the Air Force Metrology Calibration Program. Wyle, who is the incumbent contractor, contends that the Air Force misevaluated both offerors' proposals and that Bionetics has a conflict of interest that should have precluded it from receiving the award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The AFPSL, located in Heath Ohio, is the Air Force's highest echelon metrology and calibration laboratory. As such, it provides a critical link between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and base-level Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratories (PMEL). The AFPSL complex consists of laboratories with the rigid environmental controls necessary for precise measurements. The RFP, which was issued on March 29, 2001, contemplated the award of a cost-type contract, with both cost-plus-award-fee and cost-reimbursement no-fee line items, for a base period of 3 years and up to 17 one-year options. [1] The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Four factors were to be considered in the determination of best value: mission capability (which encompassed five subfactors), [2] proposal risk (which was to be evaluated at the subfactor level), past performance, and cost. The first three factors were to be of equal importance in the evaluation, whereas cost was to be of lesser significance. The RFP provided that offerors' cost proposals would be evaluated to determine probable cost for the base and all 17 option periods, with the cost for option periods 8-17 (years 11-20) computed using the estimated cost of option period 7 (year 10) times an annual escalation rate of 3.4 percent. RFP at sect. M.3.4. The solicitation also provided for the evaluation of cost proposals to determine whether the proposed costs were realistic and reasonable. Id. Four offerors submitted proposals by the May 7 closing date. Three of the proposals were included in the competitive range, and discussions were held with, and final proposal revisions received from, each of the three offerors. A technical evaluation team rated the proposals under the mission capability factor; a Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) evaluated offerors' past performance; and a cost team evaluated the probable cost of the proposals over a 20-year period of performance.