B-299981; B-299981.3, Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., September 28, 2007

B-299981; B-299981.3, Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., September 28, 2007 TITLE: B-299981; B-299981.3, Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., September 28, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299981; B-299981.3 DATE: September 28, 2007 ******************************************************************************** B-299981; B-299981.3, Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., September 28, 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: Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. File: B-299981; B-299981.3 Date: September 28, 2007 Brian W. Craver, Esq., Person & Craver, LLP, for the protester. Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Allison V. Feierabend, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for The S.M. Stoller Corporation, an intervenor. Charmaine A. Howson, Esq., and Patricia D. Graham, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation contemplated award of fixed-price contract, price realism analysis was reasonable where agency compared proposed prices to government estimate and other proposed prices, and ensured that prices reflected specified labor categories and hours specified by RFP. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal unreasonably received evaluation credit for exceeding solicitation requirements is denied; where solicitation provides for award on best value basis, agency reasonably may assess as a proposal advantage degree to which proposal exceeds minimum solicitation requirements. 3. Protest that awardee received improper competitive advantage due to status as incumbent contractor is denied; agency is not required to discount competitive advantage gained by virtue of performance as incumbent contractor. DECISION Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. protests the award of a contract to The S.M. Stoller Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-06LM00060, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for support services. Navarro complains that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and failed to perform an adequate price realism analysis. We deny the protest. DOE's legacy program is responsible for managing land structures and facilities that were associated with nuclear weapons production during the cold war and are now closed. The RFP sought support services for this program, and provided for award of a contract on a time-and-material basis, with provision for a base fee and award fees. The RFP indicated that the award would be made on a "best value" basis considering technical factors--technical approach, management approach, personnel qualifications and staffing, corporate experience, and past performance--and price; the technical factors were more important than price. RFP at 88-92. Regarding price, the RFP, as amended, included a list of 15 labor categories, with multiple experience levels and the estimated number of hours that each level could be expected to perform annually. RFP at 381. The RFP also specified a dollar amount that each offeror was to include in its proposal for other direct costs. RFP at 383. Offerors were to propose a loaded, fixed, hourly rate (minus fee) for each labor category, as well as a base fee and an award fee. RFP at 78-79. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and completeness. RFP at 92. The agency received five proposals, including Navarro's and Stoller's. A technical evaluation committee (TEC) reviewed and scored the proposals under each factor. The combined technical factors were worth 1000 points with technical approach worth 400, management approach 250, personnel qualifications and staffing 200, corporate experience 100 and past performance 50. Agency Report (AR) at 6. Of the five proposals, Stoller's was ranked first, with a technical score of 920 (of 1,000 available) points--320 (of 400) for technical approach, 250 (of 250) for management approach, 200 (of 200) for personnel qualifications and staffing, 100 (of 100) for corporate experience, and 50 (of 50) for past performance. AR at 7. Navarro's proposal was ranked fourth technically, with a score of 465 points--200 for technical approach, 125 for management approach, 40 for personnel qualifications and staffing, 50 for corporate experience, and 50 for past performance. Id. Stoller's proposed price was lowest at $167,656,172, and Navarro's was the highest at $213,677,929. AR at 8. Based on the technical scores and price combined, the TEC ranked Stoller's proposal first overall and Navarro's fourth. Id.