SDS International, Inc., B-291183.4; B-291183.5, April 28, 2003

SDS International, Inc., B-291183.4; B-291183.5, April 28, 2003 TITLE: SDS International, Inc., B-291183.4; B-291183.5, April 28, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291183.4; B-291183.5 DATE: April 28, 2003 ********************************************************************** SDS International, Inc., B-291183.4; B-291183.5, April 28, 2003 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-291183.4; B-291183.5 Date: April 28, 2003 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., Robert L. Allen, Esq., and Clarence D. Long, III, 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 1. Agency reasonably exercised discretion in implementing recommendation made in GAO decision, which sustained a protest on the basis that the agency misevaluated one of the three evaluation subfactors of the mission capability factor included in the solicitation, when it decided to not reopen discussions, to not reevaluate past performance (because GAO denied the protest of this evaluation), and to evaluate all subfactors of the mission capability factor. 2. Agency reasonably determined that the strengths in the awardee's proposal that were found to be a significant benefit to the agency were sufficient to offset the price advantage of the protester's proposal, which did not offer comparable strengths. 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 deny the protests. The RFP, a small business set-aside issued on April 3, 2002, is 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. 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. Under the mission capability factor, the RFP listed three subfactors in descending order of importance: (1) training and workload management, (2) courseware development approach and instructional systems development management plan, and (3) phase-in. With regard to the first subfactor, training and workload management, the RFP stated: This subfactor will be evaluated to insure the offeror is employing personnel with qualifications commensurate with the requirements of the SOW and is managing these personnel effectively. This subfactor examines the contractor's proposed manning levels, personnel qualifications, personnel mix, and the duties and responsibilities of the site manager. All manning positions must be fully supported by the contractor's workload analysis. RFP at 48. A number of proposals were submitted. After discussions were conducted and final proposal revisions submitted, the source selection evaluation team (SSET) determined the proposals of SDS (the incumbent contractor) and CBD were the highest rated of those submitted, receiving the following ratings[1]: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | |Past Performance |Mission Capability/Risk | | |---| |-----------------------------|Price | | | |Subfactor|Subfactor|Subfactor| | | | |No. 1 |No. 2 |No.