WPI, B-288998.4; B-288998.5, March 22, 2002

WPI, B-288998.4; B-288998.5, March 22, 2002 TITLE: WPI, B-288998.4; B-288998.5, March 22, 2002 BNUMBER: B-288998.4; B-288998.5 DATE: March 22, 2002 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: WPI File: B-288998.4; B-288998.5 Date: March 22, 2002 Michael W. Clancy, Esq., and Frank K. Peterson, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., and Timothy W. Staley, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., an intervenor. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for DynCorp Information & Enterprise Technology, Inc., an intervenor. Ronald G. Allen, Esq., Lt. Col. John M. Smith, and Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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. Agency reasonably determined that awardees' higher levels of resources available to perform the contract constituted meaningful benefits to the agency where the solicitation provided that an offeror's technical capacity to respond to workload requirements around the world was the most important consideration under two of three technical evaluation factors. 2. Protester's challenge to the manner in which the agency evaluated offerors' costs/prices is not timely filed, where solicitation unambiguously advised offerors of the agency's intended method of evaluation, and the protester responded to the solicitation without objection. 3. Where solicitation established cost/price as the least important evaluation factor and provided that it was ?significantly? less important than the combined technical factors, we find no basis to question the agency's judgment that the awardees' technical superiority outweighed the protester's lower evaluated cost/price, where that determination was supported by a documented, comprehensive discussion of the various factors the agency considered. DECISION WPI protests the Department of the Air Force's award of contracts to Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and DynCorp Information & Enterprise Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41624-00-R-8042 to provide global engineering, integration, and technical assistance (GEITA) services related to environmental requirements. WPI asserts that the agency failed to properly evaluate technical proposals, failed to properly evaluate cost/price, and failed to perform a reasonable tradeoff between cost/price and technical factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2001, the Air Force issued solicitation No. F41624-00-R-8042, seeking proposals to provide a broad spectrum of support services for the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) and for AFCEE's customers worldwide. Specifically, the solicitation required support for ?any and all? AFCEE programs, including restoration, compliance, pollution prevention, conservation and planning, fuel facility engineering, base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities, and military family housing initiatives, to include privatization and outsourcing activities. RFP, SOW, at 4-5. The SOW emphasized the worldwide nature of the requirements, noting that contractors will be required to provide on-site assistance at locations around the world where ?the intensity, criticality, or other factors warrant[] immediate attendance and full-time residence.? Id. at 17. The solicitation contemplated award of up to four indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, two competed pursuant to full and open competition and two competed as small business set-asides.[1] The solicitation also provided for source selection on a ?best value? basis, and stated that the agency intended to make awards on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. Regarding source selection, the solicitation provided that awards would be based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: mission capability, past performance, proposal risk, and cost.[2] In addition to establishing cost/price as the least significant factor, the solicitation emphasized the limited weight to be given cost/price, stating that it was ?significantly? less important than the other factors combined. RFP sect. M002(A). Regarding preparation of cost proposals, section L of the solicitation directed offerors to submit fully burdened hourly rates for twenty specified labor categories.[3] Offerors were advised that, for purposes of evaluating cost/price, the agency would develop a ?composite average rate? for each proposal by applying each offeror's labor rates to a ?typical core labor hour mix required to complete [the] requirements under this contract,? [4] and dividing each offeror's total costs to perform the pricing task by the total hours within the task. RFP sect.