B-297291; B-297291.2, Computer Cite, December 23, 2005

B-297291; B-297291.2, Computer Cite, December 23, 2005 TITLE: B-297291; B-297291.2, Computer Cite, December 23, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297291; B-297291.2 DATE: December 23, 2005 ****************************************************** B-297291; B-297291.2, Computer Cite, December 23, 2005 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: Computer Cite File: B-297291; B-297291.2 Date: December 23, 2005 Charles R. Marvin, Jr., Esq., and Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Maj. Derek S. Sherrill, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated offerors' proposals submitted in response to solicitation for telecommunications support services is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonably supported by the record. DECISION Computer Cite protests the award of a contract to D. S. Information Systems Corporation (DSIS) by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5215-05-R-0010, to provide telecommunications support services at Hickam Air Force Base (AFB) and other government locations in Hawaii. Computer Cite challenges the agency's evaluation and award decision, and alleges that the evaluation was tainted by a conflict of interest that makes award to DSIS improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, seeking proposals for a contractor to provide all personnel, supervision, equipment, tools, and material necessary to perform installation, testing, documentation, and maintenance and repairs. The solicitation's statement of work (SOW) identified typical tasks or areas of work, including consulting, engineering, diagnostics (on-site and remote), telephone and network wiring, installation, records maintenance, and other recurring support services. RFP, SOW, at 3. The RFP contained four contract line item numbers (CLINs), each describing the services to be performed, along with estimated quantities, for each performance period. RFP at 3-10. The solicitation incorporated by reference the contract clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.222-41, "Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, as Amended," and included various wage determinations for the areas to be serviced by the contract. The solicitation also incorporated by reference the clause at FAR sect. 52.222-42, "Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires,"[1] and included the following information: This Statement is for Information Only It is not a Wage Determination Employee Class Monetary Wage -- Fringe Benefits TELECOMMUNICATIONS MECHANIC I WG-8 $22.27 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MECHANIC II WG-10 $25.37 RFP at 27.[2] As amended, the solicitation contemplated award, without discussions, of a fixed-price requirements contract (with a cost-reimbursement component) to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, for a base period with four 1-year option periods. RFP amend. 2, at 2. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors--technical capability and price. The technical capability evaluation was to be on a pass/fail basis with proposals being rated as either acceptable or unacceptable. The first prong of the technical capability assessment required offerors to include the following information for evaluation: written certification from Avaya Professional Certification Program or from accredited Information Technology Training Center that they are qualified to perform maintenance and repair work on Avaya telephone switch system. RFP amend. 2, at 2. The second prong of the assessment of the acceptability of the offeror's technical capability, and the one at issue in this protest, stated: The standard is met when: . . . The offeror provides a listing of similar projects in telecommunications support services similar in volume as Hickam AFB's workload. The listing shall include the project's total dollar value, location, point of contact and phone number information and work listing can be commercial or governmental. Id. Only those technical proposals evaluated as acceptable would then be evaluated under the price factor.