MacAulay-Brown, Inc., B-292515; B-292515.2, September 30, 2003

MacAulay-Brown, Inc., B-292515; B-292515.2, September 30, 2003 TITLE: MacAulay-Brown, Inc., B-292515; B-292515.2, September 30, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292515; B-292515.2 DATE: September 30, 2003 ********************************************************************** MacAulay-Brown, Inc., B-292515; B-292515.2, September 30, 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: MacAulay-Brown, Inc. File: B-292515; B-292515.2 Date: September 30, 2003 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., and Z. Taylor Shultz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for the protester. G. Lindsay Simmons, Esq., Thad S. Huffman, Esq., Wm. David Byassee, Esq., and J. Eric Whytsell, Esq., Jackson Kelly, for Applied Research Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and LTC Carol L. Hubbard, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where protester*s primary proposal was to hire incumbent staff, and it proposed higher salary rates but lower total compensation than the incumbent contractor, agency reasonably evaluated proposal as posing moderate risk based on potential inability to hire significant portion of incumbent workforce. 2. Agency satisfied requirement to conduct meaningful discussions by communicating evaluators* concerns with the protester*s ability to recruit/retain the incumbent workforce, thus leading the protester into the area of its proposal needing improvement. 3. Agency*s failure to adjust awardee*s evaluated most probable cost upward to reflect awardee*s proposed lowering of current salary rates and proposed low escalation rate was reasonable where agency fully considered these features of awardee*s cost proposal and concluded that they were achievable and represented reasonable exercise of management control given current employment market conditions. 4. Cost/technical tradeoff was reasonable where source selection authority considered technical distinctions between competing proposals and specifically determined that higher technically rated proposal represented best value despite higher cost. DECISION MacAulay-Brown, Inc. (MacB) protests the award of a contract to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08637-02-R-6001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for scientific engineering and manpower services (SEAMAS). MacB challenges the technical evaluation, the cost analysis, and the best value award determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide SEAMAS support to assist the Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Expeditionary Forces Technologies Division (AFRL) in the execution of AFRL*s assigned mission as the Air Force*s lead agency for research and development (R&D) in the areas of deployed base systems, force protection, and weapon systems logistics. The scope of the work includes all aspects of planning, construction, instrumentation, testing, and conducting, managing, briefing, and reporting of R&D activities within the Expeditionary Forces Technology Division. Offerors were expected to propose all necessary personnel--physicists, engineers, chemists, technicians, financial and other managerial personnel, and robotics experts--to perform the required activities. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base year, with 5 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated under four factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, and cost, with the non-cost factors of equal importance and, combined, of more importance than cost. The mission capability factor was further divided into the following subfactors (and sub-subfactors): technical performance (personnel plan; subcontracting plan; and safety plan) and program management (field director; overhead staff; processes for planning, documentation, and analysis of R&D tasks; and cost control). Proposals were to be rated under the technical factors as blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable. Proposal risk was to be evaluated as high, moderate, or low. Past performance was to be rated as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, neutral, and marginal. Cost was to be evaluated on the basis of reasonableness, realism, and most probable cost (MPC) based on the realism analysis. Award was to be made on a *best value* basis. Three proposals, including those of MacB and ARA, were received and evaluated by the source selection team (SST).