Resource Consultants, Inc., B-293073.3; B-293073.5; B-293073.6, June 2, 2004

Resource Consultants, Inc., B-293073.3; B-293073.5; B-293073.6, June 2, 2004 TITLE: Resource Consultants, Inc., B-293073.3; B-293073.5; B-293073.6, June 2, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293073.3; B-293073.5; B-293073.6 DATE: June 2, 2004 ********************************************************************** 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: Resource Consultants, Inc. File: B-293073.3; B-293073.5; B-293073.6 Date: June 2, 2004 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Sophia R. Zetterlund, Esq., Erin R. Karsman, Esq., and Richard C. Johnson, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen, for the protester. Agnes P. Dover, Esq., Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Gary A. Campbell, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, an intervenor. Robert L. Duecaster, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's contention that the awardee's final revised price effectively altered its technical approach, even though offerors were not allowed to make changes to their technical proposals, is sustained where the record shows that the awardee's final price proposal shifted the mix of personnel used to perform the contract, and significantly decreased the staffing it proposed to use for one type of work covered by the contract. DECISION Resource Consultants, Inc. (RCI) protests the award of a contract to Titan Corporation, Enterprise Services and Solutions Sector, by the Department of the Army under solicitation No. DASW01-03-R-0040, for desktop support services to the Army's Information Management Support Center. RCI argues that the Army's evaluation of Titan's revised price proposal was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here was issued on May 23, 2003, and covered six separate lots of effort designed to consolidate desktop service support operations for approximately 80 agencies within Headquarters, Department of the Army. Lot I of the solicitation, the portion of the work at issue in this protest, contemplated a single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for desktop support services for a base period of 2 years, plus five 1-year options. RFP at 2. The solicitation sought performance-based solutions to providing desktop support services to the Army, and requested that offerors submit fully-burdened hourly labor rates for their employees. The solicitation also stated that all task and delivery orders under the Lot I contract would be issued on either a fixed-price or time-and-materials (T&M) basis. For reasons discussed in greater detail below, the particular pricing requirements of this solicitation--both as initially issued, and as ultimately amended--are relevant to this protest. Initially, offerors were required to submit five discrete components of price for the Lot I work (and for each of the option years within Lot I). These were: (1) a fixed price for the work (see, e.g., CLIN 0001AA); (2) a T&M price for the work (CLIN 0001AB); (3) an amount for other direct costs associated with performing the work on a fixed-price basis (CLIN 0001AC); (4) an amount for general and administrative (G&A) costs to be added to other direct costs associated with performing the work on a fixed-price basis (CLIN 0001AD); and, (5) a price for performing after-hours work on a fixed-price basis (CLIN 0001AE). RFP at 6-8. Because the solicitation's pricing schedule requested both fixed and T&M prices for the work, the total obtained by adding the prices submitted for each of these CLINs was roughly twice the total expected price for this effort. The RFP advised potential offerors that award would be "based on a best value analysis" of three factors: management/technical, past performance, and cost/price. RFP amend. 3, at 6. The RFP also advised that the management/technical factor was more important than the past performance factor, and that management/technical and past performance combined were more important than cost/price. Id. at 9. Seven proposals were received by the initial due date of June 23, 2003, and five of them were included in the competitive range.