B-296946.6, University of Dayton Research Institute, June 15, 2006

B-296946.6 Jun 15, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) protests various actions of the Department of the Air Force taken in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8222-04-R-1000 to provide design, engineering and technical support services. Among other things, UDRI protests that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-296946.6, University of Dayton Research Institute, June 15, 2006 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: University of Dayton Research Institute File: B-296946.6 Date: June 15, 2006 Daniel A. Bellman, Esq., and William R. Wernet, Esq., for the protester. Lt. Col. Sharon K. Sughru, and Brett J. Swanson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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's communications with awardees following submission of initial proposals, during which awardees made multiple changes to the evaluated rates on which the agency's source selection decision was based, constituted discussions and required that the agency establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all competitive range offerors. DECISION University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) protests various actions of the Department of the Air Force taken in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8222-04-R-1000 to provide design, engineering and technical support services. Among other things, UDRI protests that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued RFP No. FA8222-04-R-1000 in October 2004, seeking proposals to –provide design and engineering/technical support services for the Department of Defense weapon systems, components, and support equipment.—[1] Agency Report I,[2] Tab 8, Performance Work Specification (PWS), at 7. The solicitation contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts,[3] with 5-year ordering periods and 7-year performance periods and an aggregate ceiling value of $1.9 billion. The solicitation also provided that the source selection decision would be made on a –best value— basis, and established the following evaluation factors: mission capability,[4] past performance, proposal risk, and cost/price.[5] RFP at 92'94. The solicitation stated that, although cost/price was less important than the other evaluation factors, –[consideration of] cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.—[6] Id. at 94. With regard to mission capability, the solicitation identified 43 particular capabilities for which offerors were required to discuss acceptable technical approaches.[7] More specifically, the RFP stated that each offeror's proposal was required to demonstrate the offeror's capability in –at least one sub-element for each systems/applications grouping (A through I) for each functional category (1 through 5).— RFP at 81. With regard to evaluation of cost/price, the solicitation stated, –A TEP [total evaluated price] will be developed and used as a tool to evaluate rates and burden factors, as a consideration to select the awardees in the best value decision-making process for the basic contract.— RFP at 97. In establishing a total evaluated price, offerors were directed to complete various rate tables, identifying both prime and subcontractor labor rates for various labor categories, by contract type (that is, cost'reimbursement, time-and-materials, or fixed-price), and by location of performance (that is, contractor site or government site). Regarding evaluation of cost/price, the solicitation provided that the –evaluated— rate tables would form the basis for the agency's cost/price evaluation and source selection decision, stating: The total composite price for all years for each prime contractor table will be summed and entered into the appropriate cell on the Total Evaluated Price worksheet. . . . The total composite price for all years for each subcontracting table will be summed and entered into the appropriate cell on the Total Evaluated Price worksheet. . . . Eventually, everything will feed into the worksheet tab named –Total Evaluated Price.— This value will be used for evaluation/selection purposes only and is not to be construed as a minimum or maximum awardable amount. Minor formula adjustments and clerical errors may be added/corrected in the TEP by the government for situations that may occur during the evaluation process that are necessary to reflect an accurate TEP.