Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.

Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. TITLE: Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. BNUMBER: B-289475.2; B-289475.3 DATE: July 1, 2002 ********************************************************************** Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc., B-289475.2; B-289475.3, July 1, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. File: B-289475.2; B-289475.3 Date: July 1, 2002 George W. Stiffler, Esq., and Donald A. Tobin, Esq., Bastianelli, Brown & Kelley, for the protester. Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for Hughes Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Lee Wolanin, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency misevaluated the awardee's technical proposal under staffing and past performance subfactors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment unreasonable. 2. Protest that the agency did not accept the protester's proposed indirect rates in the agency's cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that the protester was not prejudiced, even assuming the protester's objections are correct. DECISION Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Department of Transportation (DOT), to Hughes Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTRS57-01-R-20023, for fire life safety program engineering services, including the support of fire safety improvements at airport facilities. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity task?order contract. Depending upon the services required, task orders would be issued on either a fixed?price or cost-reimbursement basis. Offerors were informed that DOT intended to make award, considering cost and technical factors, based on initial proposals without conducting discussions. The identified two equally important technical factors: technical capabilities and technical understanding. The technical capabilities factor had two equally weighted subfactors: staffing and past performance. The technical understanding factor had four various weighted subfactors: technical and management approach, quality control and health and safety approach, resources, and responses to the hypothetical tasks. The solicitation provided that the technical factors were significantly more important than the cost factor in the award selection, but in the event that the evaluation under technical factors were essentially equal, cost might become the determining factor in the award decision. The RFP contained detailed proposal preparation instructions. Regarding the staffing subfactor, offerors were instructed to identify personnel for this contract, and to provide resumes that were "verifiable in that relevant dates and names and addresses of educational institutions and employers must be provided for all experience, education, and specialized training claimed."[1] RFP � L.6.3, part 1.d. With respect to the past performance subfactor, the RFP requested past performance information for both the offeror and the major proposed subcontractors. Specifically, the offeror was to provide a list of contracts that it was "currently performing or had completed within the past [3] years," and from this list the offeror was to select no more than five contracts that it considered "the most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort." RFP � L.6.3, part 2. The cost evaluation was to be based on the offeror's proposed costs for estimated labor hours for 1 year for various stated labor categories. The RFP provided for a cost realism evaluation to assess the probable cost, which would be used to determine the best value to the government, and provided cost schedules (numbered 2 through 8) that offerors were to use to provide cost information, such as indirect rates and subcontract information. The solicitation cautioned that "[a]ll costs, rates, factors, and calculations must be shown and supporting rationale and documentation included." RFP � L.7.4. Four proposals, including those of Jensen and Hughes, were submitted and evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation team (TET). Written requests for clarification were sent to all of the offerors. With respect to Hughes's offer, DOT asked Hughes to explain inconsistencies in the costs identified in various cost schedules for the firm's subcontract costs.