NVT Technologies, Inc., B-289087, January 3, 2002

B-289087 Jan 03, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which alleges that the in-house cost estimate failed to use predetermined or "plug-in" material costs that private-sector offers were required to offer is denied. Where the agency states that the proposed in-house material costs were derived from the same historical data from which the plug-in prices were calculated and it is undisputed that the in-house material costs were higher than the plug-in costs used by the protester. 2. That the "most efficient organization" for in-house performance identified and stated costs for all positions necessary to perform the performance work statement requirements was reasonable. 3. Which alleges that the amount of contract administration costs added to the protester's proposed price was unreasonable because the grade structure of contract administrators was too high. View Decision NVT Technologies, Inc., B-289087, January 3, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NVT Technologies, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Navy not to award a contract to NVT under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-01-R-5101, but instead to continue in-house performance of base operations and maintenance support services at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, California. The decision to retain the services in-house was a result of a cost comparison pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, which compared NVT's proposal to perform the work against the quality assurance surveillance plan, transition plan, technical performance plan, and management plan of the agency's "most efficient organization" (MEO). /1/ We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for base operation and maintenance support services for a base year, four 1-year options, and three 1-year award terms. /2/ The core services solicited included facilities maintenance and repair, utilities operations and maintenance, facilities planning, engineering, and environmental support services. Offerors were informed that the RFP was issued as part of a government cost comparison to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract or by government performance was more economical. If government performance was determined to be more economical, then no award under the RFP would be made and the solicitation would be canceled. The RFP provided that the private-sector competition would begin with the submission of "statements of qualifications" from interested offerors and that these submissions would be evaluated under two factors: corporate experience and past performance. The solicitation provided that, after evaluating these statements, the Navy would tell each offeror whether it was considered "to be a viable competitor." Whatever the agency's advice, all firms submitting statements of qualification were permitted to continue in the competition. RFP Secs. L, M at 118, 125. Those firms that elected to continue to participate in the private-sector competition would be permitted to schedule a site visit to inspect where the contract services would be performed and determine the "general and local conditions that may affect the cost of contract performance." RFP Sec. L at 116. The RFP provided that, after the site visit, offerors would submit technical and price proposals and provide an oral presentation. The RFP stated that the successful private-sector offeror could be selected on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff based upon the following factors: (1) the statement of qualifications factors, (2) technical and management approach, and (3) price. Factors (1) and (2) were stated to be of equal importance, and both factors combined were stated to be approximately equal to price. RFP Sec. M at 126. The Navy received statements of qualifications from three offerors, including NVT. NVT's statement was evaluated by the agency's quality evaluation board (QEB) as acceptable for corporate experience and past performance. Agency Report, Tab 4, Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, attach. A, QEB Report (Dec. 22, 2000), at 7. Only NVT was found to be a viable competitor, and only NVT elected to continue to participate in the remainder of the competition. Agency Report at 2. Prior to the closing date for receipt of NVT's technical and price proposals, the Naval Audit Service, as the independent review official (IRO), certified that the MEO study team's management plan satisfied the PWS requirements and that the in-house cost estimate was reasonable. Agency Report, Tab 6, IRO Certification (Feb. 28, 2001). The management plan and in-house cost estimate were then sealed by the agency. NVT's technical and price proposals were submitted and evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation board (TEB) and price evaluation board (PEB), respectively.