TITLE:  MPRI, Inc., B-289401, February 20, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-289401
DATE:  February 20, 2002
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: MPRI, Inc.

File: B-289401

Date: February 20, 2002

Harvey Sherzer, Esq., Scott Arnold, Esq., Joe R. Reeder, Esq., and Neil E.
Richman, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, for the protester.

Lee P. Curtis, Esq., and Suzette W. Derrevere, Esq., Perkins Coie, and
Terrence Murphy, Esq., Patrick H. O'Donnell, Esq., and Mary Elizabeth
Anderson, Esq., Kaufman & Canoles, for Communication Technologies, Inc., an
intervenor.

Capt. Ronald D. Sullivan, Maj. Howard W. Roth, Lt. Col. Scott E. Lind, and
Col. Michael R. Neds, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly failed to consider awardee's lower proposed
fringe benefits in determining whether price proposal reflected management
plan proposal to hire incumbent employees, is denied where source selection
authority was aware of protester's higher fringe benefits and reasonably
concluded that difference was not significant because awardee's overall
proposed compensation, while lower than protester's, was comparable.

DECISION

MPRI, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Communication Technologies,
Inc. (COMTek) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-01-R-0002, issued
by the Department of the Army for Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)
functional support. MPRI challenges the evaluation of COMTek's proposal.

The RFP sought proposals to provide nationwide specialized support in the
functional areas of ROTC instruction, cadet recruiting, retention and
training, administration, ROTC field training, and administrative and
logistical services. Services included the provision of staff officers,
assistant professors of military science (APMS), and enlisted instructors.
Based on the prior history of performance, the agency anticipated a
requirement of some 363 personnel at 220 institutions. The RFP contemplated
the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base year, with 4
option years.

Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors: management
proposal, past performance, and price. [1] Price was to be evaluated and
analyzed to determine, among other things, whether pricing reflected the
management proposal. RFP sect. M.4. All non-price factors were considered
significantly more important than price; award was to be made to the offeror
whose proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP sect. M.2.

Three offerors, including MPRI and COMTek, submitted proposals; after the
initial evaluation by the technical evaluation board (TEB), the third
offeror's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range. The agency
conducted discussions with both remaining offerors and obtained revised
proposals from each. The results of the final evaluation were as follows:

                       MPRI               COMTek

 Management [2]        Exceptional        Exceptional

 Past Performance      Good               Good
 [3]

 Price                 $193,098,650       $142,393,042

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the findings of the TEB and
the price evaluation, and noted that the significant difference in price
between the proposals was principally due to MPRI's higher indirect rates
and profit. She acknowledged that there were limited advantages in MPRI's
proposal, but found that they did not overcome COMTek's substantial price
advantage. Accordingly, the SSA determined that COMTek's proposal
represented the best value to the government and awarded it the contract.
After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, MPRI filed this
protest.

MPRI asserts that the agency did not meaningfully consider the total
compensation proposed by the offerors. Supplemental Comments at 4. However,
the record shows that the agency did conduct a detailed comparison of
offerors' prices, consistent with the terms of the RFP. Because this
solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, there was no
requirement that the agency conduct a detailed cost analysis, OMV Med.,
Inc.; Saratoga Med. Ctr., Inc., B-281387 et al., Feb. 3, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 52
at 5; the depth of the price analysis was a matter within the sound exercise
of the agency's discretion. Volmar Constr., Inc., B-272188.2, Sept. 18,
1996, 96-2 CPD para. 119 at 6. As discussed below, we find that the agency's
price analysis was reasonable here.

Specifically, MPRI contends that the price evaluation was flawed because the
agency did not address the alleged failure of COMTek's price proposal to
reflect its management proposal, as required under the RFP's price
evaluation provisions. [4] MPRI asserts that, while the agency compared the
firms' salary packages, it did not consider the fact that COMTek's fringe
benefits were lower than MPRI's, and the negative effect that this could
have on both COMTek's plan (under its management proposal) to hire
approximately 95 percent of the incumbent workforce, and its ability to
retain workers through the term of the contract. Protester's Comments at 3;
Supplemental Comments at 2-3.

MPRI's argument is without merit. While the SSA did not document her
conclusions regarding fringe benefits at the time of the source selection,
she has provided information in response to the protest showing that she did
in fact consider the difference in fringe benefits, and concluded that the
difference was not significant. [5] Specifically, she explains that she was
aware that each offeror proposed different indirect rates that included the
cost of their proposed fringe benefit packages, and that, in her
"experience, [she] did not consider this difference in rates [[deleted]
versus [deleted] percent] to be a source of major concern." SSA Supplemental
Statement at para. 3. According to the SSA, what she considered important was
the "obvious conclusion that COMTek's price for APMS was more than adequate
to cover both its annual salary and a fringe benefit package comparable to
the present MPRI package [and] fully cover[ed] the total compensation needed
for performance." Id. at para. 4. In this connection, while MPRI emphasizes that
COMTek's proposed average salary for its APMSs (330 of the 363 proposed
personnel) was lower than MPRI's ([deleted] versus [deleted]), the agency
points out that COMTek's proposed salary represented an increase over the
average salary for APMSs under MPRI's incumbent contract [deleted], which
could mitigate any impact from COMTek's lower fringe benefits. We find
nothing unreasonable in the contracting officer's position. Although MPRI's
fringe benefits were higher, we think she reasonably determined that the
difference in value was sufficiently small that the firms' total
compensation packages were comparable for purposes of considering whether
COMTek's management proposal should be downgraded. While MPRI disagrees with
the agency's judgment as to what constitutes comparability, such
disagreement is not a sufficient basis for sustaining a protest. BFI Waste
Sys. of Nebraska, Inc., B-278223, Jan. 8, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 8 at 2.

Since the SSA determined that the two firms' compensation packages were
comparable and adequate to perform the contract, she had no reason to
downgrade COMTek's management proposal on the basis that its lower overall
compensation package would impede its efforts to hire incumbent employees.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The management proposal was evaluated on the basis of seven equally
weighted subfactors: contract performance plan; recruitment and retention
plan to include retention at high cost areas; corporate experience;
demonstrated understanding of the Army Cadet Command; procedures for
transitioning; key and non-key personnel; and employee incentive plan. Past
performance was evaluated on the basis of five equally weighted subfactors:
effort of comparable complexity; cost compliance; technical compliance;
schedule compliance; and other areas of customer satisfaction. RFP sect. M.4.

2. MPRI's proposal received exceptional ratings under all management
subfactors. COMTek's proposal received exceptional ratings under five
subfactors and good under two, recruitment and retention, and corporate
experience. The overall ratings for both were exceptional.

3. Both proposals were rated good under all subfactors except comparable
complexity, under which MPRI's proposal was rated exceptional and COMTek's
marginal. The overall ratings for both were good.

4. In its initial protest submission, MPRI asserted that the agency
improperly evaluated COMTek's non-price proposal as equivalent to the
protester's. The agency's report provided a detailed response to this
allegation. Because MPRI's comments did not contain any rebuttal to the
agency's response, we consider this allegation abandoned. Analex Space Sys.
Inc.; PAI Corp., B-259024, B-259024.2, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 106 at 9.

5. Post-protest explanations that provide a detailed rationale for
contemporaneous evaluation conclusions simply fill in previously unrecorded
details; we will consider such explanations in our review of the rationality
of a selection decision where, as here, the explanation is credible and
consistent with the contemporaneous record. See NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Labs.,
Inc., B-280988, B-280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 158 at 16; Northwest
Management., Inc., B-277503, Oct. 20, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 108 at 4 n.4.