BNUMBER: B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3
DATE: June 8, 1998
TITLE: SDS International, Inc., B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3,
June 8, 1998
**********************************************************************
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.
Matter of:SDS International, Inc.
File:B-279361; B-279361.2; B-279361.3
Date:June 8, 1998
James S. DelSordo, Esq., and Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Kinosky,
Phillips & Lieberman, for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Christine F. Davis, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's proposed level of effort as
technically acceptable, where it comports with the government estimate
and the level of effort expended under prior contracts for these
services.
DECISION
SDS International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Avtech
Research Corporation, the incumbent contractor, under request for
proposals (RFP) No. F26600-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the
Air Force, to provide data analysis and technical expertise for
Foreign Materiel Exploitation, Special Access Required Program testing
and Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures publications.
We deny the protest.
The RFP performance work statement (PWS) listed 13 general tasks to be
performed by the contractor in support of advanced tactical fighter
and other developmental programs. PWS sec. 5.1. Twelve of these tasks
required the contractor to plan and execute tests; to produce reports,
publications, and briefing materials (including classified documents
and CD-ROM versions of publications); and to attend meetings and
conferences. PWS sec. 5.1.1 to 5.1.12. The remaining task required the
contractor to provide automated data processing (ADP) support services
for approximately 50 computers with peripheral equipment; the required
support included making repairs, recommending software and hardware
upgrades, and installing software upgrades furnished by the
government. PWS sec. 5.1.13. The RFP instructed offerors to describe in
their technical proposals their approach to the PWS tasks. RFP sec.
L-900-2.a.(1)(c), (e).
The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base
period with 4 option years on a low-priced, technically acceptable
basis. RFP sec. B, L-65C, M-16C(b). The RFP stated five equally
important evaluation factors: (1) Management, (2) Production, (3)
Quality, (4) Past Performance, and (5) Price, including options. RFP sec.
M-16C(a), M-72. The production factor provided for an evaluation of
the offeror's proposed staffing chart, which was to reflect the number
of employees proposed for contract performance. RFP sec.
L-900-2.a.(2)(a). None of the evaluation factors provided for an
evaluation of the offeror's technical approach to the PWS
requirements. RFP sec. L-900-2.a.(2), M-16C(a).
The RFP provided workload data to assist offerors in estimating their
staffing needs, including a technical exhibit showing the expected
number of tests, briefings, and CD-ROM volumes to be required per
year. PWS Technical Exhibit 2. The workload estimates were based
upon the government's historical requirements for these services.
Although not disclosed in the RFP, the Air Force estimated a need for
two employees to perform the contract, for an overall estimated
contract price of $750,000.[1] The government estimate was based upon
the assumption that two employees have performed these services for
more than 5 years, first under a General Services Administration (GSA)
contract and then under a 6-month interim contract awarded to Avtech
by the Air Force.
Avtech and SDS submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Avtech
proposed to perform the contract with [deleted] employees for a total
price of $736,014, which closely approximated the government estimate.
SDS proposed to perform the contract with [deleted] employees[2] for a
total price of $1,719,012. The Air Force evaluated both proposals as
technically acceptable. That being the case, award was made on the
basis of Avtech's lower-priced proposal.
SDS protests that the Air Force should have rejected Avtech's proposal
as technically unacceptable because it allegedly did not address a
mandatory PWS requirement and did not propose sufficient personnel to
perform the PWS tasks.
The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility
of the contracting agency; the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them and must bear the
burden of any difficulties arising from a defective evaluation.
Avogadro Energy Sys., B-244106, Sept. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 229 at 5.
In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate
the proposals; we will only consider whether the agency's evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in
the solicitation. Herndon Science and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan.
9, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 46 at 3. A protester's disagreement with the
agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
unreasonably. Id.
SDS first argues that Avtech's proposal was technically unacceptable
because it allegedly did not discuss how Avtech would perform ADP
support for the 50 required computers, 1 of the 13 tasks listed in the
PWS. Although the RFP in this case instructed offerors to describe
their technical approach to the PWS requirements, none of the RFP
evaluation criteria contemplated an evaluation of an offeror's
technical approach, nor has the protester alleged that they did. See
RFP sec. L-900-2.a.(1)(c), (e); L-900-2.a.(2); M-16C(a). In any event,
we disagree with SDS that Avtech's proposal failed to acknowledge the
ADP requirement. Avtech addressed the requirement by asserting its
technical capability to provide the required ADP support. Given that
the PWS described the ADP requirement with specificity, giving
offerors little latitude to define a technical approach, it was
reasonable for Avtech to address the requirement by reference to its
technical capability. Indeed, we note that SDS's technical proposal
adopted the same approach to the ADP support requirements. Thus, the
agency reasonably concluded that Avtech submitted an acceptable
proposal in this respect.[3]
SDS also contends that the Air Force should have rejected Avtech's
proposal as unacceptable because the awardee cannot perform the
contract with only two employees as proposed. We disagree. Avtech's
level of effort comported with the government estimate, which
reflected the fact that two employees have successfully performed the
required services for more than 5 years, first under a multi-year GSA
contract and then under Avtech's 6-month interim contract. Even
though the protester does not dispute that two employees performed the
predecessor GSA contract, SDS questions the validity of the government
estimate on grounds that Avtech employed more than two people to
perform the 6-month incumbent contract; specifically, an SDS
representative stated in an affidavit that, in preparing SDS's
proposal, he spoke to "Avtech's President and [Chief Executive
Officer] who informed [him] that Avtech employed four people to do the
incumbent effort." Even assuming that SDS received such information,
the information came, not from the contracting officer or other
government official, but from a competitor during the proposal
preparation period (moreover, SDS does not allege that it was told
that four employees worked full-time on the contract). In any case,
the record reflects that there were only two employees on the
incumbent contract, as indicated by the organizational chart presented
at the pre-proposal conference, and as confirmed by Avtech's proposal
(stating that its interim contract was a follow-on to a "five-year,
two person, GSA contract"), and the contracting officer's
responsibility determination.
SDS alleges that the government estimate understates what is required
by the PWS. Based upon its own workload estimates, SDS alleges that
the RFP data analysis and reporting tasks alone will require the
effort of [deleted] employees, which excludes the effort required for
computer maintenance, CD-ROM production, contract management, and
administrative support.
As noted above, SDS offered to perform the contract with [deleted]
employees, only [deleted] of whom are proposed to perform the data
analysis and reporting tasks. However, it is apparent that the data
analysis and reporting tasks are the central tasks that the contractor
will be expected to perform under this contract; only 2 of the 13 PWS
tasks (the ADP support and the CD-ROM production support) do not
involve data analysis or reporting. SDS has not explained why the
[deleted] employees needed to perform the principal work of the
contract will require the assistance of [deleted] more employees to
fulfill the residual PWS tasks and to provide managerial and
administrative support. For example, while SDS alleges that the
computer maintenance function will consume [deleted] labor hours per
year [deleted], the staffing chart in SDS's proposal does not reflect
that the protester offered this [deleted] level of effort for the
computer maintenance task, nor has SDS explained why so many labor
hours are necessary to perform this task, which involves relatively
few computers and is only peripheral to the overall purpose of the
contract. Therefore, it would seem that SDS's estimate that [deleted]
employees are needed to perform the RFP data analysis and reporting
functions supports, rather than undermines, the agency's conclusion
that Avtech's proposed staff of [deleted] employees was acceptable.
In sum, based on our review of the record, we find that the
government's staffing estimate relied upon accurate historical
information and served as a valid basis for finding Avtech's staffing
proposal to be acceptable.[4]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The agency states that it disclosed during the pre-proposal
conference that the incumbent employed only two persons. The
protester denies that any such thing was said. On the second page of
the minutes of the pre-proposal conference, it is indicated that there
are two contractor employees who are attached to the section of the
Air Force's 57th Wing Detachment responsible for this contract work.
2. More precisely, SDS proposed to perform the contract using
[deleted] labor hours annually, which translated to [deleted]
employees.
3. Contrary to SDS's contention, the RFP did not require Avtech to
propose a computer maintenance technician or to state in its proposal
that its fixed-price included ADP support to render its proposal
acceptable.
4. The protester also states that the government estimate is
understated because it assumes 2,080 hours per year per employee
rather than 1,776 hours per year. However, since the protester states
that this would merely raise the estimate to 2.34 (rather than 2)
employees per year, this contention, even if valid, is immaterial.