Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc.

Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc. TITLE: Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc. BNUMBER: B-290193; B-290193.2 DATE: June 25, 2002 ********************************************************************** Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc., B-290193; B-290193.2, June 25, 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: Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc. File: B-290193; B-290193.2 Date: June 25, 2002 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., and James J. Reid, Esq., Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins, for the protester. Robert J. McMullen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency conducting a commercial activities study under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 did not act improperly in amending the performance work statement (PWS) during its review of the in-house management plan where the agency determined at that time that the PWS did not accurately reflect its minimum needs and the changes to the PWS were provided to the private-sector offerors through amendment of the request for proposals. 2. Agency reasonably determined, during a commercial activities study under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, that the in-house management plan reasonably established the ability of the government to perform the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS), and identified and included all costs necessary to perform the PWS requirements. 3. Agency, which during its evaluation of private-sector proposals submitted as part of a commercial activities study under Office of Management and Budget Circular A?76 found that the selected "best value" proposal merely met the requirements of the request for proposal's performance work statement (PWS) and did not identify any strengths in the proposal, was not required to make any adjustments to the in-house management plan, which also was found to meet the minimum PWS requirements. DECISION Integrity Management Enterprises, Inc. (IME) protests the Department of the Navy's determination, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A?76, that it would be more economical to retain the performance of central support services for the Pensacola Naval Regional Complex (PNRC) in-house, rather than contract for these services with IME under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140?00-R-G514.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued February 24, 2000 as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract, with certain cost reimbursement provisions, for a base period with four 1-year options. Offerors were informed that the solicitation was issued as part of a Circular A-76 commercial activities study to determine whether accomplishing the support services set forth in the solicitation's PWS 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.[2] RFP amend. No. 0011, at 29. The solicited central support services included general, central administrative, supply, postal, and emergency dispatch services. The PWS specified the requirements for each of these service areas, and set forth estimated average annual workloads and minimum performance standards. The RFP provided that the successful private-sector offeror would be selected on the basis of which offeror's proposal represented the best value to the government. The solicitation informed offerors that technical merit would be considered more important than price in determining which proposal represented the best value to the government, and listed the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (a) Past Performance (b) Management Plan (i) Staffing Plan (ii) Quality Control Overview (c) Corporate Experience The quality control overview subfactor to the management plan factor was to be "evaluated on a pass/fail basis." Id. at 33. The RFP provided detailed proposal preparation instructions, and requested that offerors submit separate technical and price proposals.