New Breed Leasing Corporation

B-259328 Mar 24, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-rated offeror is unreasonable where the information concerning the cognizant technical evaluation board's conclusions regarding relative merits of the proposals provided to the source selection official on which he based his award decision was inaccurate and the discriminators used to differentiate proposals were not supported by the evaluation record. New Breed argues that the agency's award selection was unreasonable and not in accord with the evaluation criteria. The awardee will provide. Was determined most advantageous to the government. Price The RFP stated that the three technical evaluation factors were "essentially equal in importance. " and that "[t]he cumulative rating of the technical evaluation factors is of more importance than the price factor. View Decision Matter of: New Breed Leasing Corporation File: B-259328 Date: March 24, 1995 * Redacted Decision Agency's decision to award to a higher-priced, higher-rated offeror is unreasonable where the information concerning the cognizant technical evaluation board's conclusions regarding relative merits of the proposals provided to the source selection official on which he based his award decision was inaccurate and the discriminators used to differentiate proposals were not supported by the evaluation record. Attorneys DECISION New Breed Leasing Corporation protests the award of a contract to LBM, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68931-93-R-9618, issued by the Department of the Navy for transportation operations and maintenance services. New Breed argues that the agency's award selection was unreasonable and not in accord with the evaluation criteria. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on April 15, 1994, provided for the award of a combination firm, fixed-price award fee/indefinite quantity contract for a 5-year period. The awardee will provide, among other things, motor pool and dispatch services, bus and taxi service, fuel operations, vehicle maintenance and repair, towing services, road and runway sweeping, and related environmental and administrative support services at three Navy installations in the Jacksonville, Florida area. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors: a. Proposer's Past Performance in Transportation Operations and Maintenance; b. Management and Administration; c. Method of Operation d. Price The RFP stated that the three technical evaluation factors were "essentially equal in importance," and that "[t]he cumulative rating of the technical evaluation factors is of more importance than the price factor. However, price becomes more significant as technical evaluations become similar." The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Among other things, technical proposals were limited to 150 pages of text using 10 pitch type or larger. The Navy received 14 proposals, including the proposals submitted by New Breed and LBM, by the RFP's closing date of May 25. The proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB), which found that several proposals, including New Breed's and LBM's, did not comply with the page and/or type size restrictions. However, the TEB evaluated all of the proposals submitted in their entirety, regardless of their length or the type size used, or whether they adhered to the required organizational structure. The TEB recommended that the proposals of nine offerors, including those of New Breed and LBM which received overall "very good" ratings, be included in the competitive range. The source selection board (SSB) reviewed the TEB report, and found it deficient because one of the four voting members of the TEB had not fully participated in the evaluation of proposals, and because the adjectival ratings assigned the various proposals were inconsistent with the evaluators' narrative comments. The SSB reconvened the TEB and directed it to review its evaluation and develop technical discussion questions for all offerors, except those whose proposals were rated unacceptable. On June 29, the TEB issued a revised report, which included the following statement: "The Board members reviewed their individual ratings and after much discussion, it was determined that the narrative portion of each individual's rating accurately described the contractor's proposal. Each evaluator reread his narrative rating and compared that rating to the rating guide in the Source Selection Plan [SSP]. Each evaluator adjusted the factor ratings by marking their original sheets in green pen to align more closely with the rating descriptions in the [SSP] guidance. . .