Strategic Analysis, Inc., B-292392; B-292392.2, September 3, 2003

Strategic Analysis, Inc., B-292392; B-292392.2, September 3, 2003 TITLE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., B-292392; B-292392.2, September 3, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292392; B-292392.2 DATE: September 3, 2003 ********************************************************************** Strategic Analysis, Inc., B-292392; B-292392.2, September 3, 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: Strategic Analysis, Inc. File: B-292392; B-292392.2 Date: September 3, 2003 James D. Bachman, Esq., and Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, for the protester. Michael F. Copley, Esq., and Stuart W. Harris, Esq., Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, for LOGTEC, Inc., the intervenor. Maj. Brent G. Curtis, and Michael D. McGrath, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation expressly contemplated that vendor would not have certain required non-disclosure agreements (NDA) until after commencement of performance under task order, and provided criteria for assessing vendor*s plan to obtain NDAs after issuance of order without calling for price evaluation adjustments or for any adverse evaluation consequences for doing so, agency reasonably did not downgrade proposal for including a highly rated plan to obtain required NDAs after issuance of the order, and was not required to increase the evaluated cost to the government to compensate for the alleged transition costs related to the delay in performance that the solicitation anticipated for obtaining the NDAs. DECISION Strategic Analysis, Inc. (SAI) protests the issuance of a 5-year time and materials task order (to be placed against a General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) contract) to LOGTEC, Inc., for independent research and development and data mining (IR&D) support under request for quotations (RFQ)No. FA8652-03-Q-0012, issued by the Air Force Research Laboratory. SAI protests that the Air Force misevaluated LOGTEC*s proposal by failing to properly consider the cost and technical impact of LOGTEC*s need to obtain certain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that are required in order to perform, and that the Air Force conducted improper discussions with LOGTEC. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on April 11, 2003, sought quotations to be evaluated on the basis of three factors, management approach to acquiring NDAs, IR&D expertise and data mining technical ability, and price respectively on a 30/40/30 percentage weighted basis. The Air Force estimates that there are approximately 100 required NDAs, and the RFQ statement of work (SOW) provided that the contractor was required to initiate, update, renew, or otherwise obtain 80 percent of these agreements prior to beginning the data mining subtask. RFQ, SOW P: 1.1.1.1. The RFQ also stated that the government *anticipates that it may take 5-7 months for a contractor with few existing NDAs to establish the NDAs identified* in the solicitation, and required that the vendor*s *proposal regarding management approach to acquiring NDAs shall include a performance plan with progress measures.* RFQ P: 2(a). Three quotes were received by the amended April 21 deadline, LOGTEC*s and SAI*s, plus one from a vendor whose technical approach was evaluated as noncompetitive. SAI, the incumbent, had in place approximately 40 current required NDAs. LOGTEC had 90 NDAs, a limited number of which the Air Force believed could be used for the contract requirements at issue. SAI*s quote was $2,059,055.70 and LOGTEC*s was $1,532,225.68. SAI*s proposal received a slightly higher overall technical evaluation resulting in part from the assessment under the approach to acquiring NDA factor, under which the evaluators credited SAI for possession of a significant number of executed NDAs, in conjunction with a solid plan to acquire the required additional NDAs. LOGTEC*s proposal received a slightly less favorable evaluation under this factor because LOGTEC did not have in place a comparable base of required NDAs, but the evaluators credited LOGTEC for its extensive experience in establishing NDAs, its possession of existing NDAs that might be usable, and for a solid plan for acquiring and maintaining NDAs, which included the proposed use of an incumbent consultant whose credentials added credibility for purposes of acquiring the required NDAs. AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation of LOGTEC, at 1. Neither vendor*s proposal was evaluated as having any weaknesses under this factor.