SDS International, Inc., B-291183; B-291183.2, December 2, 2002

SDS International, Inc., B-291183; B-291183.2, December 2, 2002 TITLE: SDS International, Inc., B-291183; B-291183.2, December 2, 2002 BNUMBER: B-291183; B-291183.2 DATE: December 2, 2002 ********************************************************************** SDS International, Inc., B-291183; B-291183.2, December 2, 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: SDS International, Inc. File: B-291183; B-291183.2 Date: December 2, 2002 Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., and James S. Phillips, Esq., The Centre Law Group, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for CBD Training, Inc., an intervenor. John D. Inazu, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Selection of higher-priced, higher-rated proposal, instead of lower‑priced, lower‑rated one, was unreasonable where it was based in material part on an unsupported reported strength in the awardee's proposal. DECISION SDS International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to CBD Training, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-02-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Combat Command Contracting Squadron, Langley Air Force Base Virginia, for aircrew training and courseware development. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued April 3, 2002 as a small business set-aside, was for aircrew training and courseware development at the 57th Wing United States Air Force Weapons School (USAFWS), Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, under a fixed-price contract for a 30-day phase-in period and a base year with 4 option years. In addition to the training and courseware development requirements, the statement of work (SOW) required the contractor to maintain the USAFWS's academic database and make it accessible from the Internet. The SOW explained that *[t]he database shall provide an [I]nternet[-]based Learning Management System (LMS)/Courseware Management System [(CMS)] that identifies and tracks student deficiencies, provides graduate critiques, and service as a 'one stop shopping' site for all instructor and student academic/courseware needs.* The SOW further stated that *all unclassified material shall be accessible from the weapons school unclassified LAN [local area network], while all classified and unclassified material shall be located on a classified server that can be accessed via a SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) web page with password controls,* and required the task be accomplished *with no additional workload* on the USAFWS LAN and staff. See RFP, SOW P:P: 1.7.7, 1.7.7.1, 1.7.7.2. The RFP provided for award on a *best value* basis considering as evaluation factors past performance, mission capability, risk, and price. Past performance and mission capability were of equal importance in the evaluation scheme, followed by risk, with price being of least importance. RFP at 45. Under the mission capability factor, the RFP listed three subfactors in descending order of importance: (1) training and workload management, (2) courseware development (CWD) approach and instructional systems development (ISD) management plan, and (3) phase-in. RFP at 48. The RFP stated *[p]ast performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts,* and *will be evaluated by examining four (4) references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement,* although *more or less may be evaluated as appropriate.*[1] The RFP further explained that for this purpose *[r]ecency . . . is defined as performance occurring in the last five (5) years*; that *[r]elevancy . . . is defined as courseware development and aircrew training related to Factor 2, Mission Capability, experiences, especially those provided to the military at multiple locations*; and that *[e]xperience with training contracts, which utilize the Air Force's model of [ISD] . . .will also be viewed favorably.* Completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) were said to be the primary source for evaluating past performance. RFP at 40, 46. The Air Force received four proposals, including SDS's and CBD's, by the May 23 closing date.