B-299433; B-299433.2, Weidlinger Associates, Inc., May 7, 2007

B-299433; B-299433.2, Weidlinger Associates, Inc., May 7, 2007 TITLE: B-299433; B-299433.2, Weidlinger Associates, Inc., May 7, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299433; B-299433.2 DATE: May 7, 2007 ************************************************************** B-299433; B-299433.2, Weidlinger Associates, Inc., May 7, 2007 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: Weidlinger Associates, Inc. File: B-299433; B-299433.2 Date: May 7, 2007 Daniel B. Abrahams, Esq., Howard A. Wolf-Rodda, Esq., and Pamela A. Reynolds, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green PC, for the protester. Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Philip M. Dearborn, Esq., and Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Merrick & Company, an intervenor. Blane B. Lewis, Esq., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency properly evaluated awardee's technical/management approach as "exceptional," and protester's as "acceptable," where awardee's proposed approach offered evaluated strengths that exceeded the solicitation requirements and protester's proposed approach met, but did not exceed, the requirements. 2. Agency properly considered all of the past performance information submitted by protester, including information submitted prior to solicitation amendment that revised and provided additional detail regarding past performance evaluation criteria. 3. Agency properly concluded that protester's proposal did not offer the lowest evaluated cost/price where solicitation provided that the proposed costs for two sample tasks would constitute the evaluated cost/price, and protester's proposal for the sample tasks offered higher costs than the awardee's proposal. DECISION Weidlinger Associates, Inc. (WAI) protests the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA) award of a contract to Merrick & Company for engineering services pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HDTRA2-06-R-0001. WAI protests that the agency erred in evaluating various aspects of WAI's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In March 2006, the agency issued this solicitation, seeking professional engineering services to support DTRA's testing activities.[1] Agency Report (AR), vol. 1-6, RFP, at 286.[2] The solicitation contemplates award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year base period and a 5-year option period, with a maximum value of $10 million over 10 years. Section M of the solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis and established the following three evaluation factors: mission capability, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 279, 280. With regard to mission capability, the solicitation initially established the following subfactors: personnel qualifications, technical/management approach, sample task 1,[3] sample task 2,[4] and sample task 3.[5] Id. at 280. Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation provided that offerors "shall identify their team structure, team member roles, responsibilities, and experience for the area of work they will perform," and that, under the technical/management approach subfactor, the agency would assess whether an offeror's proposal offered, among other things, an "[e]ffective management organization that defines responsibilities, staffing and percentage of work of prime and key subcontractors, and prime field and home offices" and a "[c]omplete and clear description of the methods and means planned to accomplish effort under each of the required work areas." AR, vol. 1-6, RFP, at 267, 282. With regard to past performance, the solicitation directed offerors to submit past performance references, but also provided, "Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use . . . data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past and present performance."[6] Id. at 269. With regard to cost/price, RFP section L, as amended, advised offerors that "sample task 1 and 3 cost proposals will be used for the cost evaluation," and RFP section M, as amended, provided: "The proposed total costs for recurring requirements (Sample Task 3, Work Area 2[[7]]) and Sample Task 1 will constitute the evaluated cost." AR, vol. 1-7j, RFP amend. No. 10, at 329. Accordingly, each offeror was required to propose appropriate labor categories, along with applicable labor rates, to perform the sample tasks.[8] AR, vol. 1-6, RFP, at 270-71.