Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.; Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-292354; B-292388, September 2, 2003

Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.; Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-292354; B-292388, September 2, 2003 TITLE: Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.; Wyle Laboratories, Inc., B-292354; B-292388, September 2, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292354; B-292388 DATE: September 2, 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: Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.; Wyle Laboratories, Inc. File: B-292354; B-292388 Date: September 2, 2003 Richard Vacura, Esq., Holly Emrick Svetz, Esq., John R. Zitko, Esq., and Peter C. Sales, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, for Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., and Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., James P. Gallatin, Jr., Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., and Kurt D. Ferstl, Esq., for Wyle Laboratories, Inc., the protesters. Robert J. Symon, Esq., and Christyne K. Brennan, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for Sverdrup Technology, Inc., the intervenor. Sumara M. Thompson-King, Esq., and Sandra M. Wozniak, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 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 Agency's evaluation of proposals was not reasonable where the agency, during the cost realism evaluation, made significant adjustments to the protester's proposed staffing levels in calculating the most probable cost associated with the proposal that were inconsistent with the agency's view during the technical evaluation of the proposal that the proposed staffing level was appropriate, and where the record casts serious doubts on the reasonableness of the government estimate and the mechanical way it was used in the cost realism evaluation. DECISION Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. and Wyle Laboratories, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Sverdrup Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 13SSC-O-02-38, issued by the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA), for test operations services at the John C. Stennis Space Center and George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. The protesters primarily argue that the agency's cost realism evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. We sustain the protests. The solicitation is for the consolidation of services for the Stennis and Marshall centers that had previously been acquired under separate contracts. The record reflects that NASA chose to consolidate the contracts in order to obtain, among other things, improvements in efficiency and safety, more competition and lower costs to the government, and flexibility in staffing and management across the two centers. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Acquisition Strategy Meeting Presentation, at 15; RFP at 69. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period of 2 years with two 2-year options. The successful contractor will furnish the management, labor, facilities, materials and equipment (except for that to be furnished by the government) and "do all things required to provide Test Operations Services" for the Stennis and Marshall centers. RFP at 24. The bulk of this contract is for labor hours. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 28. The RFP contained a detailed performance work statement (PWS) divided into three sections. Section one of the PWS provided for the "management and administration functions . . . necessary to successfully execute testing" at Stennis and Marshall, with the "focus on accomplishing safe test operations using sound business practices." RFP at 70. Section two of the PWS provided for the "test and engineering core capabilities" at Stennis and Marshall, which required the maintenance of a test capability at the centers "independent of whether there is an active test program or not." RFP at 78. The third section of the PWS was for "test capabilities" work "necessary to develop, construct, and operate test systems required for successful completion of a test program." RFP at 86. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, considering the essentially equally weighted evaluation factors of mission suitability, past performance, and cost. The mission suitability factor was comprised of the following four subfactors (with the relative weight of each of the subfactors being disclosed in the RFP): technical performance (450 points); management (300 points); safety, health, and mission assurance (SH&M) (150 points); and small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation (100 points). RFP at 301.