B-298543; B-298543.3, STG, Inc., October 30, 2006

B-298543; B-298543.3, STG, Inc., October 30, 2006 TITLE: B-298543; B-298543.3, STG, Inc., October 30, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298543; B-298543.3 DATE: October 30, 2006 ************************************************* B-298543; B-298543.3, STG, Inc., October 30, 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: STG, Inc. File: B-298543; B-298543.3 Date: October 30, 2006 Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., Daniel J. Donohue, Esq., J. Michael Littlejohn, Esq., and Steven J. Koprince, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt Wickwire Gavin, for the protester. Paul E. Pompeo, Esq., Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Beta Analytics, Incorporated, an intervenor. Mary E. Clarke, Esq., Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging "bait and switch" where awardee requested permission from the agency to substitute nine personnel after award is denied where the record does not establish that the awardee knowingly or negligently misrepresented its intent to furnish the nine individuals for whom substitution was sought. 2. Protest challenging proposal evaluation and source selection is denied where record shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms and applicable procurement rules. DECISION STG, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Beta Analytics, Incorporated (BAI) under solicitation No. HR0011-06-R-0001, issued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for support services for the Security and Intelligence Directorate, under the Office of Management Operations at DARPA. STG challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the agency's source selection decision, and alleges that BAI engaged in a "bait and switch" by substituting less qualified personnel after award as compared to the more highly qualified personnel identified in its proposal.[1] We deny the protest. DARPA's mission is to serve as the central research and development organization of the Department of Defense with primary responsibility to maintain U.S. technological superiority over potential adversaries. As a consequence, DARPA is responsible for a number of secret and top secret programs. Agency Report (AR) at 2. DARPA's Security and Intelligence Directorate (SID) supports this mission by "planning, executing, and directing the information, personnel, industrial, information assurance, and physical security programs at DARPA and at specified contractor sites." RFP at 8. On February 13, 2006, DARPA issued the RFP, which provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract with 1 base year and four 1-year options for services in support of the mission of SID. Specifically, DARPA sought a contractor to provide a "high quality professional security staff" to partner with SID in accomplishing its mission. RFP at 8. To accomplish this goal, the RFP's statement of work identified and described a total of 37 tasks required of the contractor in the areas of "security operations," "program security," and "security program planning and execution." RFP 9-21. Offerors were advised of the estimated level of effort needed to perform the tasks required under the statement of work and support SID in performing its mission for each contract period (base and options). In this regard, DARPA provided a list of required labor categories, the estimated hours for each labor category, and the estimated full time equivalents (FTE) for each labor category. In sum, DARPA estimated a need for 69 FTEs for the base and each option year. RFP at 75. Under the RFP, award was to be made on a "best value" basis with proposals evaluated under the following factors: (1) technical approach, (2) personnel, (3) past performance, and (4) cost/price. Regarding the non-cost factors, the RFP provided that the technical approach and personnel factors were of equal importance and both were more important than the past performance factor. The best value determination was to be made using a trade-off process where the >non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. The importance of cost/price, however, would increase as non-cost factors were determined to be closer in merit. RFP at 77, 81. Under the personnel factor, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate that the personnel they proposed to staff the contract met minimum qualification requirements for education and experience.