Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., B-291769, B-291769.2, March 24, 2003

Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., B-291769, B-291769.2, March 24, 2003 TITLE: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., B-291769, B-291769.2, March 24, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291769, B-291769.2 DATE: March 24, 2003 ********************************************************************** Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., B-291769, B-291769.2, March 24, 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: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. File: B-291769, B-291769.2 Date: March 24, 2003 Michael R. Charness, Esq., and Robert J. Rothwell, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, for the protester. Captain Anissa N. Parekh, Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Matthew Bowman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably eliminated protester's proposal from consideration on the basis of the proposal's failure to propose adequate staffing levels to perform multiple solicitation requirements and the proposal's unacceptable phase-in plan reflecting an intent to begin contract performance with a majority of employees who were not completely trained and certified to perform all contract requirements. DECISION Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (KBR) protests the Department of the Army's determination that KBR's proposal failed to meet the requirements contained in request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT23-02-R-0008 to perform unit-level maintenance and support functions for vehicles used to conduct training and instructional missions at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. KBR challenges the agency's determination that KBR's proposed staffing levels were inadequate and that KBR's phase-in plan failed to comply with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, the agency issued solicitation No. DABT23-02-R-0008, seeking proposals to perform operator- and organizational-level maintenance and support functions for the 16th Cavalry Regiment and the 1st Armor Training Brigade at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.[1] The solicitation was issued to select a private sector proposal to compete with the agency's most efficient organization (MEO) under the A-76 cost comparison process.[2] The solicitation contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods, and advised offerors that selection would be made on the basis of the technically acceptable proposal offering the lowest proposed cost/price deemed realistic. Agency Report, Tab D, at 54. As amended, the solicitation provided for evaluation of proposals under the following primary factors: technical, past performance, management, and cost/price. Agency Report, Tab D, at 55. Under the technical evaluation factor, the solicitation listed various subfactors, including staffing plan and technical approach,[3] stated that these two subfactors were the *most important,* and provided that if a proposal was rated *marginal* or *unacceptable* under either of these subfactors the entire proposal would be considered unacceptable.[4] Agency Report, Tab D, RFP at 54, 55. The solicitation also advised offerors that *[i]t is the Government's intention to award without discussions.* Agency Report, Tab D, RFP, at 44. Three offerors, including KBR, submitted proposals by the October 30, 2002 closing date; these proposals were thereafter evaluated against the stated factors. No discussions were conducted with any offeror. In summarizing its proposed staffing plan, KBR's proposal stated: All equipment items identified in the PWS [performance work statement] . . . were researched, using the Army MARC [manpower requirements criteria] database to derive the total hours it should take Army personnel to complete maintenance functions.[[5]] We then applied an adjustment factor (based on performance metrics derived from performing similar work by a skilled contractor workforce) to the Army labor hour standards . . . . Agency Report, Tab F, KBR Proposal, at D-24. At the hearing conducted by GAO in connection with this protest,[6] a KBR representative testified that KBR applied two separate adjustments to the MARC database. First, KBR reduced its version of the MARC database by approximately 30 percent.[7] Thereafter, KBR applied a second [deleted] reduction, decreasing the MARC data by [deleted]. Hearing Transcript (Tr.), Feb. 21, 2003, at 7‑9. KBR's proposal did not disclose the magnitude of the second *adjustment factor,* nor did it provide any explanation tying the [deleted] staffing reduction to any particular contract performance approach.