B-298734; B-298734.2, Leader Communications Inc., December 7, 2006

B-298734; B-298734.2, Leader Communications Inc., December 7, 2006 TITLE: B-298734; B-298734.2, Leader Communications Inc., December 7, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298734; B-298734.2 DATE: December 7, 2006 ****************************************************************** B-298734; B-298734.2, Leader Communications Inc., December 7, 2006 Decision Matter of: Leader Communications Inc. File: B-298734; B-298734.2 Date: December 7, 2006 Inslee T. Bennett for the protester. Maj. Kevin J. Wilkinson, and Douglas J. Thiesen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined that the award of a contract for business support services to a firm currently performing a contract for acquisition support services did not create an organizational conflict of interest. 2. Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for business support services was reasonable where the agency's evaluated criticisms of the protester's proposal were consistent with terms of the solicitation and the record. DECISION Leader Communications Inc. (LCI) protests the award of a contract to CC&G Company[1] under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9451-06-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for business resources and support services (BRASS) for the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, provided for the award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that provides for the issuance of cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders. RFP sections B039, B051. The contractor will be required to provide all personnel, services, and other items necessary to perform business reporting, analyses, and management administration support functions in support of the Directed Energy and Space Vehicle Directorates at AFRL.[2] The RFP listed the following evaluation factors to determine the best-value proposal: past performance, mission capability, price/cost, and proposal risk. The past performance and mission capability factors were said to be equal in importance and significantly more important than the price/cost and the proposal risk factors. The mission capability factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors: personnel qualifications/corporate experience and management. RFP sect. M002. By the RFP's closing date, the agency received nine proposals, including those of LCI (the incumbent contractor on the predecessor contract to the BRASS contract, which was called the Business and Staff Support (BASS) contract) and CC&G. Agency Report (AR), Tab 23, Source Selection Decision Document, at 1. The proposals were evaluated, with CC&G's proposal receiving ratings of "high confidence" under the past performance factor, with "blue" with "low" proposal risk ratings under both subfactors comprising the mission capability factor, at a proposed price of $17.2 million and an evaluated cost/price of $17.3 million.[3] LCI's proposal received ratings of "high confidence" under the past performance factor, "green" with "low" proposal risk under the personnel qualifications/corporate experience subfactor of the mission capability factor, and "green" with "moderate" proposal risk under "management" subfactor, at a proposed price of $17.4 million.[4] AR, Tab 22, Evaluation Matrix; Tab 23, Source Selection Decision, at 17. The agency selected CC&G's highest rated, lowest cost/price proposal for award. LCI protests that CC&G should be precluded from receiving award under this solicitation because one of its joint venture partners, CAS, has an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). LCI, which asserts that its incumbent BASS contract included an OCI clause that "barred [it] from competition on any other AFRL contract," contends that because CAS is currently performing an acquisition closeout support services (ACSS) contract for AFRL at Kirtland AFB, "fundamental fairness" requires that CC&G "be barred from participating on the BRASS Contract" because the BASS contract "was of a similar nature to CAS['s] ACSS" contract. Protester's Comments at 3; Protester's Supp. Comments at 4. In this regard, the protester contends that "[a]ccess to contract sensitive information and developing requirements is an implicit part" of the ACSS contract. Protester's Supp.