B-298432.3, Indtai Inc., January 17, 2007

B-298432.3 Jan 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Indtai Inc. protests the award of three contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. W74V8H-06-R-0044, issued by the Department of the Army for non-personal educational support services to assist government professionals in the delivery of adult education services at sites in eight designated regions worldwide. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298432.3, Indtai Inc., January 17, 2007 Decision Matter of: Indtai Inc. File: B-298432.3 Date: January 17, 2007 Robert Brotzman for the protester. Janice Davis, Esq., Davis & Steele, for Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc, and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and Peter J. Eyre, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for aXseum Solutions, LLC, the intervenors. Maj. ChristinaLynn E. McCoy and Capt. James F. Ford, Department of the Army, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. The past performance of proposed subcontractors may properly be considered in evaluating the past performance of an offeror where the solicitation does not expressly prohibit its consideration. 2. Agency performed a sufficient price analysis, which determined the awardees' prices were fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition, and was not required to perform a price realism analysis to ascertain whether there were performance risks associated with awardees' low prices because the solicitation did not provide for such an analysis. DECISION Indtai Inc. protests the award of three contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. W74V8H-06-R-0044, issued by the Department of the Army for non-personal educational support services to assist government professionals in the delivery of adult education services at sites in eight designated regions worldwide. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award on a –best-value— basis of as many as two indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, labor-hour contracts for each of eight regions. Proposals were to be evaluated under three evaluation factors: technical capability, past performance, and cost/price. The RFP stated that technical capability was significantly more important than past performance, and that past performance was significantly more important than cost/price. The technical capability factor had six subfactors: understanding of requirement, transition plan, program management, key personnel, quality control, and contingency plan. Past performance information was to be provided by the offerors covering relevant existing and prior contracts over the past 3 years. Price proposals were to be evaluated for price reasonableness. Fifteen different proposals were received from 13 different offerors in response to the RFP. Eight of the 15 proposals, including those of the awardees, received –excellent— technical capability and –low risk— past performance ratings. Indtai's proposal received a –low risk— past performance rating but received only a –good— technical capability rating. Indtai's price for each region was significantly higher than the awardees' prices, as well as those offered by most of the other excellent, low-risk proposals. The agency made one award per region to the firm offering the lowest-priced proposal, which was rated excellent and low-risk for that region. Regions 1, 2 and 4 were awarded to aXseum Solutions, LLC; regions 3, 6, and 7 were awarded to Evolver, Inc; and regions 5 and 8 were awarded to Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. The protester contends that the agency did not conduct a sufficiently detailed analysis of the offerors' proposals, which was caused by the short time the agency took to complete its evaluation. The procuring agency is in the best position to determine the time necessary to conduct a satisfactory proposal evaluation; our Office will only examine the agency's evaluation to ensure it was reasonable and consistent with the RFP. IMODCO, B-216259, Jan. 11, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 32 at 3-4. Contrary to the protester's allegation, as discussed below, based on our in camera review[1], the agency adequately documented its evaluation and award selections, which we find reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.[2] Indtai challenges the agency's past performance evaluation, specifically alleging the agency's ratings for past performance were unreasonable because the agency did not differentiate between prime and subcontractor past performance to give more weight to prime contractor past performance. The RFP provided: Past performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. . . .