B-309803, Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation, October 15, 2007

B-309803 Oct 15, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC) protests the award of a contract to Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8519-06-R-72815, issued by the Department of the Air Force to perform various tasks, including those related to research and development for the Air Force's Advanced Power Technology Office (APTO). ICRC primarily challenges the adequacy of the agency's discussions with the firm and the agency's failure to properly consider a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from the award to CTC. We deny the protest. View Decision B-309803, Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation, October 15, 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: Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation File: B-309803 Date: October 15, 2007 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Isaias Alba IV, Esq., and Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. David P. Metzger, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Caitlin K. Cloonan, Esq., and Jill R. Newell, Esq., Arnold & Porter, LLP, for Concurrent Technologies Corporation, an intervenor. Michael J. O'Farrell Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency was not required to advise protester during discussions that its total proposed cost was not competitive since the protester's evaluated cost was not so high as to be unreasonable or unacceptable for award. 2. Protest that award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the record does not support allegations that the awardee participated in the drafting of the statement of work or had access to non-public information that would have provided a competitive advantage. DECISION Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC) protests the award of a contract to Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8519-06-R-72815, issued by the Department of the Air Force to perform various tasks, including those related to research and development for the Air Force's Advanced Power Technology Office (APTO). ICRC primarily challenges the adequacy of the agency's discussions with the firm and the agency's failure to properly consider a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from the award to CTC. We deny the protest. The APTO is responsible for managing demonstration projects that will integrate advanced power technologies such as hybrid drive systems, fuel cells, alternative fuel formations, integration of solar power, biomass-to-energy systems, advanced battery storage devices, and hydrogen-powered systems into many different types of end items for Air Force missions. The agency plans to use the contract here to help improve weapon system logistical and sustainment support, weapon system capabilities, fuel efficiency, and to reduce harmful emissions and the agency's dependency on foreign energy sources. RFP amend. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3. The RFP contemplated the award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, for a base period of 1-year and four 1-year option periods, for research, development, test, evaluation, and sustainment support services for the APTO. RFP at 35, 49. The contract was to contain a –price— ceiling of $65 million. RFP at 34. The solicitation advised that award would be made using a –Technically Acceptable--Risk/Performance/Price Tradeoff— procedure.[1] That is, the RFP provided that proposals would first be evaluated for technical acceptability, and then subjected to a tradeoff between proposal risk, past performance and cost. In the tradeoff, proposal risk and past performance were of equal importance and, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. RFP at 55. Under the technical acceptability factor, the RFP stated that the offeror's proposed solution to a sample task included in the RFP--involving the integration of a fuel cell into a hypothetical ground vehicle--would be evaluated –to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of this solicitation— and demonstrates understanding of the requirements. Id. With regard to cost, offerors were required to propose costs for each of the contract line item numbers (CLIN) listed in the solicitation's schedule for the base and each option period.[2] RFP at 3-27. The solicitation also stated that the offeror's cost proposal would be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and balance.