B-169928(2), AUG. 18, 1970

B-169928(2), AUG. 18, 1970

BID PROTEST -- TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS REAFFIRMING DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1970, IN WHICH PROTEST AGAINST AWARD TO LOW OFFEROR WAS DENIED ON BASIS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY IS SUPPORTED BY RECORD.

TO RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 10, 1970, FORWARDED HERE, PROTESTING WITH REGARD TO REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NOS. F41609-70-R 0030 AND F41609-70-R-0034, ISSUED BY THE AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND. THE LATTER PROCUREMENT WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION TO YOU (B 169928(2)), DATED JUNE 26, 1970. ALTHOUGH YOU REQUEST FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO BOTH PROCUREMENTS, THIS DECISION IS LIMITED TO RECONSIDERATION OF OUR ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO RFP NO. F41609-70-R-0034; THE OTHER PROCUREMENT WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE DECISION.

YOU ALLEGE THAT RFP NO. F41609-70-R-0034 FOR "RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON OFFICER JOB INVENTORIES" WAS AWARDED TO LIFSON, WILSON, FERGUSON, AND WINICK, INCORPORATED, ALTHOUGH RESEARCH ASSOCIATES HAD BEEN GIVEN THE HIGHEST TECHNICAL RATING. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ALLEGATION YOU ENCLOSED A COPY TO THE REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL AT THE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY DATED APRIL 10, 1970, WHICH GAVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL THE HIGHEST TECHNICAL RATING OF THE THREE PROPOSALS RECEIVED. THE REPORT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDES THAT ALL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN THIS PROCUREMENT WERE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. IN ADDITION TO THE PANEL REPORT MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONTAINS A LETTER DATED APRIL 14, 1970, FROM THE CHIEF, PERSONNEL RESEARCH DIVISION, AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY (AFSC), LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, WHICH CONCURS WITH THE PANEL FINDINGS THAT EACH COMPANY SATISFIES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE WORK STATEMENT; HOWEVER, THE LETTER STATES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE RELATIVE ORDER OF MERIT OF THE THREE COMPANIES AS DETERMINED BY THE EVALUATION PANEL. THE LETTER STATES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"A. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES WAS RATED HIGHER THAN THE OTHER COMPANIES ON SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE. THIS IS QUESTIONABLE. THE PANEL PLACED EMPHASIS ON THE COMPANY'S EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF AIR FORCE OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES. FURTHER, THE FIRM'S ADVANTAGE IN INTERVIEWING AIR FORCE OFFICERS WAS RECOGNIZED. ITS STAFF IS COMPOSED LARGELY OF RETIRED OFFICERS... WHILE THESE FACTORS ARE RELEVANT, THE PANEL LEFT UNADDRESSED BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE THREE COMPANIES IN PRODUCING EXPLORATORY DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTS. STUDIES OF RESEARCH ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN FOCUSED IN A RELATIVELY NARROW AREA OF OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS WHERE TECHNOLOGY IS RATHER DEFINED. IN THIS CASE THE CONTRACT WILL BE AIMED AT OVERCOMING THOSE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST IN CREATING A METHODOLOGY FOR OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS OF OFFICER JOBS. EXPERIENCE THAT ESTABLISHES ABILITY TO INNOVATE IS IMPORTANT - AND EXPLICITY RECOGNIZED AS A CRITERIA BY AFSCM/OARM 80-2. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LACKS BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT SHOW IT TO BE PUSHING THE STATE-OF-THE-ART. CONVERSELY, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP IS DIVERSIFIED WITH EXPERTISE IN MANY FIELDS. HENCE, I WOULD REVERSE THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF RESEARCH ASSOCIATES AND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP ON SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE.

"B. THE PANEL HAS ALSO RATED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES HIGH ON TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION. THIS DISCOUNTS IMPORTANCE OF A WELL BALANCED STAFF. WHETHER ALL OF THE ESSENTIAL SPECIALITIES ARE AVAILABLE IN THIS COMPANY IS A JUDGMENT. IT IS APPARENT THAT THEY COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE BY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP.

"4. IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDING FACTORS I WOULD REVERSE THE RELATIVE ORDER OF MERIT OF THE COMPANIES, PLACING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP FIRST WITH NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATUS OF RESEARCH ASSOCIATES AND LIFSON."

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL PROPOSALS WERE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE, WE CAN NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE AWARD TO LIFSON, WILSON, FERGUSON, AND WINICK, INCORPORATED, WAS BASED UPON AN IMPROPER TECHNICAL EVALUATION.

YOU ALSO ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS:

"B. WE BELIEVE THAT THE AWARD OF THE SECOND CONTRACT FOR $90,420.69 REPRESENTS A 'BUY-IN' WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO LATER RENEGOTIATIONS RESULTING IN ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS - EITHER OF WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT:

"(1) ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO "BAIL-OUT" THE CONTRACTOR, OR

"(2) A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CONTRACTOR'S LEVEL OF EFFORT BELOW THAT REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT OF WORK. (TO SUPPORT THIS BELIEF, WE HAVE ATTACHED A SUMMARY OF OUR COST PROPOSAL WITH COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF WORK WE SUBMITTED WITH OUR BID.)" THIS IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF CONJUNCTURE AND IN OUR OPINION CAN NOT SERVE AS A BASIS TO DISTURB THE AWARD.

FINALLY, YOU STATE:

"C. SUBSEQUENT TO AIR FORCE EVALUATION OF ORIGINAL PROPOSALS, THE BASIS OF BIDDING FOR RFP F41609-70-R-0034 WAS CHANGED FROM A 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' TO 'FIXED FEE' UNDER A VERY SHORT SUSPENSE. UNDER THE FIRST SUBMISSION, WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE WE WERE LOWEST BIDDER - IN ADDITION TO BEING RATED BEST QUALIFIED TECHNICALLY. FROM THE COURSE OF EVENTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE GROUND RULES WERE CHANGED TO ENABLE THE AWARD TO BE GIVEN TO THE LEAST QUALIFIED BIDDER INSTEAD OF THE BEST QUALIFIED (RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.)." THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE INITIAL PROPOSALS:

SOURCE ESTIMATED AMOUNT

LIFSON, WILSON $ 86,235.15

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 123,488.95

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 152,751.00 AS STATED ABOVE, THERE WAS SOME DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHICH PROPOSAL WAS BEST. HOWEVER, ALL THREE PROPOSALS WERE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE. AS SHOWN ABOVE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DID NOT SUBMIT THE LOWEST ESTIMATED PRICE.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE CAN NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE AWARD TO LIFSON, WILSON, FERGUSON, AND WINICK WAS IMPROPER. ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1970, IS AFFIRMED.