B-310661.3; B-310661.4, Karrar Systems Corporation, March 3, 2008

B-310661.3; B-310661.4, Karrar Systems Corporation, March 3, 2008 TITLE: B-310661.3; B-310661.4, Karrar Systems Corporation, March 3, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310661.3; B-310661.4 DATE: March 3, 2008 ***************************************************************** B-310661.3; B-310661.4, Karrar Systems Corporation, March 3, 2008 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: Karrar Systems Corporation File: B-310661.3; B-310661.4 Date: March 3, 2008 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, LLP, for the protester. Ross Aboff, Esq., Archer & Greiner, for BANC3, Inc., an intervenor. Daniel Pantzer, Esq., Denise M. Marrama, Esq., and James F. Ford, Esq., Department of the Army, 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. Protest that agency unreasonably rated awardee's technical proposal acceptable despite eight weaknesses and only three strengths is denied where determination of acceptability was not based solely on number of strengths versus weaknesses and protester does not argue that awardee's proposal did not satisfy any of the criteria agency applied. 2. Assertion that protester's proposal should have been rated good rather than acceptable under one management subfactor is denied where record demonstrates that evaluators reasonably assigned acceptable rating and, in any case, conclusion that awardee's proposal was superior under management factor was based, not solely on adjectival ratings under subfactors, but on source selection official's consideration of underlying strengths and weaknesses of protester's and awardee's proposals. 3. Protest that "best value" determination was unreasonable is denied where, in determining that protester's technically superior proposal was not worth a 30 percent price premium, source selection official specifically considered proposals' ratings under each factor and subfactor, weight accorded each factor, and proposals' underlying strengths and weaknesses. 4. Protest that awardee's proposal to recruit spouses of transferred government personnel created improper conflict of interest due to potential for unduly favorable consideration from evaluators is denied where proposal was general in nature and did not identify individuals that could be affected, and there is no other evidence or reason to believe that evaluators were unduly influenced. DECISION Karrar Systems Corporation protests the award of a contract to BANC3, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-07-R-A226, issued by the Department of the Army for program and administrative services for its R2 program (which is designed to provide an efficient means of acquiring critical, near obsolete items necessary to sustain crucial weapon systems). Karrar asserts that the Army misevaluated its and BANC3's proposals and performed an improper "best value" analysis. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated a best value award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract based on four evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): technical (with subfactors for three sample task orders--pre-award, post award, and budget), management (with subfactors for transition plan to Aberdeen ( the R2 program is being moved from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland), transition plan, and management plan), performance risk, and price. RFP at 59. Four offerors responded to the RFP. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) assigned the proposals adjectival ratings under the technical and management factors and subfactors considering evaluated strengths and weaknesses, whether a proposal met the requirements of the RFP, the amount of detail provided, and the feasibility of the proposed approach.[1] Agency Report (AR) at 3. Following the initial evaluation, a competitive range determination, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final proposal revisions, Karrar's proposal was rated good under the technical factor, with subfactor ratings of good for the pre- and post-award sample task orders, and acceptable for the budget sample task order, Final Source Selection at 21; acceptable under the management factor, with subfactor ratings of acceptable for transition to Aberdeen, good for transition plan, and acceptable for management plan, id. at 37; and low for performance risk. BANC3's proposal was rated acceptable under the technical factor, with acceptable ratings for each subfactor, id.