TITLE: B-310716, Group GPS Multimedia, January 22, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310716
DATE: January 22, 2008
************************************************
B-310716, Group GPS Multimedia, January 22, 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: Group GPS Multimedia

   File: B-310716

   Date: January 22, 2008

   Ryan P. Angle, Esq., for the protester.

   Capt. Megan E. Yoss, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Awardee's proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for
   audio-visual products and services was reasonably evaluated, where the
   agency reasonably considered the awardee's proposed approach consistent
   with the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

   2. Awardee's proposal that included a particular labor category to perform
   service contract work was not legally objectionable where the proposal,
   submitted in response to a solicitation that provided for the award of a
   fixed-price contract, did not violate any solicitation provisions;
   contention that the use of the proposed labor category would violate the
   Service Contract Act will not be considered by GAO because it is a matter
   for consideration by the Department of Labor and whether contract
   requirements are met during the performance of the contract is a matter of
   contract administration.

   DECISION

   Group GPS Multimedia protests the award of a contract to K-MAR Industries,
   Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124N-07-R-0004, issued by
   the Department of the Army, for audio-visual products and services. The
   protester argues that the agency's evaluation and selection of K-MAR's
   proposal for award were unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a 100-percent set-aside for small businesses, provided
   for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 11-months
   with four 1-year options. The contractor will be required to "provide all
   personnel, management, supervision, equipment, tools, supplies, materials,
   transportation, and any other items necessary" (with the exception of
   certain government-furnished property and services) to furnish the
   audio-visual products and services in accordance with the solicitation's
   performance work statement (PWS). RFP at 29. The tasks listed in the
   solicitation to be performed by the contractor include, for example, still
   photography products and services, video products and services, audio
   products and services, as well as media duplication and technical support.
   Id. The RFP also incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) sect. 52.222-41, "Service Contract Act [SCA] of 1965," and a wage
   determination applicable to the contract that established the minimum
   applicable SCA wages and benefits. RFP at 57-67, 121.

   The solicitation informed offerors that award would be made to the offeror
   submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the
   government based upon the evaluation factors of technical capability, past
   performance, and price. The technical capability factor was comprised of
   three equally important evaluation subfactors: quality control plan,
   organizational structure/staffing, and management plan. The evaluation
   results under the technical capability factor were considered
   significantly more important than the evaluation results under the past
   performance factor, and the non-price factors combined were considered
   equal in importance to price, in determining which proposal represented
   the best value to the government. RFP amend. 4, at 44-45.

   The agency received proposals from seven offerors, including Group GPS and
   K-MAR. The record reflects that the two members of the technical
   evaluation team were unable to reach a consensus with regard to the
   overall rating to be assigned to the proposals of Group GPS and K-MAR
   under the technical capability factor, and given this, each evaluator
   prepared a memorandum detailing the bases for their respective
   determinations as well as their summary evaluation results. Group GPS's
   proposal was evaluated as "exceptional" under the technical capability
   factor by one evaluator and "marginal" by the other evaluator, while
   K-MAR's proposal was evaluated as "exceptional" under the technical
   capability factor by one evaluator and "acceptable" by the other
   evaluator.[1] Group GPS's past performance was rated "acceptable," while
   K-MAR's past performance was rated "exceptional." Group GPS's proposed
   price was $3,891,186 and K-MAR's proposed price was $3,391,946. Agency
   Report (AR), Tab 33, Source Selection Decision, at 4-5.

   The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the proposals of Group GPS
   and K-MAR, as well as the evaluation results, and assigned ratings under
   the technical capability factor of "acceptable" to Group GPS's proposal
   and "exceptional" to K-MAR's proposal. Id. at 7. With regard to K-MAR's
   proposal, the SSA found that while K-MAR's proposed staffing mix "was a
   concern" to the evaluator that had rated the proposal as "acceptable"
   under the technical capability factor, K-MAR had "explained in great
   detail how and why they chose their staffing." Id. at 8. The SSA added
   that in his view K-MAR's staffing, which provided that personnel
   categorized by K-MAR as [DELETED] was "a strength to their proposal,"
   given that [DELETED]. Id. The SSA noted here that "K-MAR is successfully
   performing . . . ten other [Department of Defense] audio visual contracts
   using the same staffing techniques," and that K-MAR's proposal provided
   "an in-depth training plan; an exceptional phase-in plan; and an
   exceptional management plan." Id. The SSA selected K-MAR's higher-rated,
   lower-priced proposal for award, and after requesting and receiving a
   debriefing, Group GPS filed this protest.

   Group GPS argues that the agency's evaluation of K-MAR's proposal as
   exceptional under the technical capability factor was unreasonable.
   Specifically, Group GPS contends that K-MAR's proposal should have been
   downgraded under the staffing element of the organizational
   structure/staffing plan subfactor to the technical capability factor,
   because, in the protester's view, K-MAR's staffing plan, which proposes
   [DELETED] to perform a number of tasks, is inadequate.

   In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
   our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record
   to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord
   with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. The protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an
   evaluation was unreasonable. Hanford Envtl. Health Found., B-292858.2;
   B-292858.5, Apr. 7, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 164 at 4.

   The record reflects that the agency was fully aware of K-MAR's proposed
   use of [DELETED] to perform a number of the requirements set forth in the
   RFP. Indeed, as noted, this aspect of K-MAR's proposed approach was
   considered by the SSA to be a strength of K-MAR's proposal. As noted by
   the SSA, K-MAR's proposal details K-MAR's training program, and describes
   the benefits to the agency of having [DELETED] capable of performing
   [DELETED]. AR, Tab 33, Source Selection Decision, at 7-8; Tab 21, K-MAR's
   Proposal, at 21-30. Although the protester clearly disagrees, our review
   of the record leads us to conclude that the agency's evaluation of K-MAR's
   proposed staffing was sufficient, and we find no basis to question the
   agency's evaluation of K-MAR's proposal as "exceptional" under the
   staffing element of the organizational structure/staffing plan subfactor
   to the technical capability factor.[2]

   The protester also argues that K-MAR's proposed [DELETED] labor category
   is inconsistent with the terms of the SCA, and that by using the wage
   rates applicable to [DELETED] in calculating its proposal, K-MAR received
   "a substantial and unfair advantage" that allowed K-MAR "to submit a much
   less expensive bid." Protester's Comments at 5-6.

   On a fixed-price contract, as here, under which the awardee is required to
   pay the actual SCA wages and benefits out of whatever price it offers, and
   where the proposal contains no indication that the company will not meet
   its statutory obligations in this regard, labor rates or benefits that are
   less than the SCA-required rates or benefits may constitute a below-cost
   offer but one which is legally unobjectionable. Biospherics, Inc.,
   B-285065, July 13, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 118 at 12. That is, regardless of
   what wage rates K-MAR used in calculating its proposed price, it will
   still be required to compensate its employees at the appropriate
   prescribed SCA wage rates. Free State Reporting Inc., B-259650, Apr. 4,
   1995, 95-1 CPD para. 199 at 7. Further, the determination of prevailing
   wages and fringe benefits, and the issuance of appropriate wage
   determinations under the SCA, are matters for the Department of Labor
   (DOL). Concerns with regard to establishing proper wage rate
   determinations or the application of the statutory requirements should be
   raised with the Wage and Hour Division in DOL, the agency that is
   statutorily charged with the implementation of the Act. See 41 U.S.C.
   sections 353(a); 40 U.S.C. sect. 276a; SAGE Sys. Techs., LLC, B-310155,
   Nov. 29, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 219 at 3. Thus, to the extent the
   protester's contention is that K-MAR may not properly categorize its
   employees under the SCA or compensate some of its employees at the
   required SCA wage rate, it is not a matter for our consideration, since
   the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the SCA is
   vested in DOL, not our Office, and whether contract requirements are met
   is a matter of contract administration, which is the function of the
   contracting agency. SAGE Sys. Techs., LLC, supra; Free State Reporting
   Inc., supra, at 7 n.7.

   We deny the protest.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the technical
   capability factor and each of its subfactors as either "exceptional,"
   "acceptable," "marginal," or "unsatisfactory." RFP at 44-45.

   [2] Contrary to the protester's argument, K-MAR's proposal expressly
   addresses the staffing of the service counter requirements. RFP at 30; AR,
   Tab 21, K-MAR's Proposal, at 21-30.