B-169928(2), JUN. 26, 1970

B-169928(2), JUN. 26, 1970

CONTRACTS--AWARDS--ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION--TIME PERIOD FOR DETERMINATION UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, WHICH ORIGINALLY SOLICITED PROPOSALS FOR COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE TYPE CONTRACT BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED FIXED PRICE, PROTESTANT MAINTAINS THERE IS NO "LEGAL, TECHNICAL OR PRACTICAL" REASON FOR AWARD TO ANY OTHER OFFEROR BECAUSE PROTESTANT IS BETTER QUALIFIED AND ALLEGES UNNECESSARY DELAY IN AWARD. PROTEST IS DENIED SINCE IT IS PREMATURE TO CONTEST AWARD NOT YET GIVEN; REPORTS SHOW ALL PROPOSALS WERE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE; IT IS MERE CONJECTURE THAT PROTESTANT IS BEST QUALIFIED; AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATES ONLY SLIGHT DELAY FROM TARGET PROCESSING TIME WHICH COULD HARDLY BE PREJUDICAL TO PROTESTANT.

TO RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 15, 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. HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THE REPORT ON RFP F41609-70-R-0030; CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DECISION IS LIMITED TO THE OTHER PROCUREMENT.

RFP NO. F41609-70-R-0034 FOR "RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON OFFICER JOB INVENTORIES" WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 26, 1970. OF THE 13 POTENTIAL SOURCES ORIGINALLY SOLICITED, THREE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED BY THE MARCH 27, 1970, OPENING DATE. IT IS REPORTED THAT ALL THESE PROPOSALS WERE DETERMINED TO BE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. THE ORIGINAL SOLICITATION REQUESTED PROPOSALS FOR A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE TYPE CONTRACT. SUBSEQUENT TO THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, THE OFFERORS WERE INVITED TO RESUBMIT THEIR PROPOSALS ON A FIXED-PRICE BASIS. IT IS REPORTED THAT AT THE TIME OF YOUR PROTEST TO THE AIR FORCE ON MAY 15, 1970, NEGOTIATIONS WERE STILL IN PROCESS.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR ALLEGATION THAT NO "LEGAL, TECHNICAL, OR PRACTICAL" REASON EXISTS FOR AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM, THE AIR FORCE IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH A CONTENTION IS PREMATURE SINCE THE PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THEY STATE THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERSONNEL ARE MORE EXPERIENCED AND BETTER QUALIFIED THAN THOSE OF COMPETING FIRMS IS SIMPLY CONJECTURE WITHOUT FACTUAL SUPPORT. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONTAINS A DETAILED REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL AT THE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY WHICH CONCLUDES THAT ALL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN THIS PROCUREMENT WERE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. NO BASIS EXISTS ON THE PRESENT RECORD TO QUESTION THIS CONCLUSION. IT IS REPORTED, HOWEVER, THAT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED AND IS CONTINUING TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN UNNECESSARY DELAY IN MAKING THE AWARD, WE QUOTE FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S STATEMENT INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:

"(FINDING) SEVENTY-EIGHT (78) DAYS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE THE RFP WAS ISSUED TO THE DATE OF THE PROTEST. THE MATRIX (GOAL) UTILIZED IN THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE, ON THIS SIZE PROCUREMENT, ANTICIPATES AWARD OF CONTRACT SEVENTY-SIX (76) DAYS AFTER RFP ISSUANCE. THEREFORE, THERE HAS BEEN A SLIGHT DELAY FROM THE TARGET PROCESSING TIME. HOWEVER, THIS DELAY IS NEITHER 'UNNECESSARY OR UNUSUAL'. FURTHERMORE, THE DELAY COULD HARDLY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES TO ANY GREATER EXTENT THAN IT HAS BEEN TO ANY OF THE OTHER SOURCES."

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY SINCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BUT IS STILL BEING CONSIDERED FOR AWARD, WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE ACTION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST WITH RESPECT TO RFP F41609-70-R-0034 IS DENIED.