Matter of: EG&G Team

B-259917.2 Jul 05, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where record shows agency gave due consideration to protester's prior experience. Was proper where agency determined technical superiority of awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost. Cost/technical tradeoff was consistent with the evaluation scheme. Proposals were to be scored on the basis of adjectival ratings of "outstanding. The cost proposals were to be evaluated for realism. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Both of which were included in the competitive range. Although JJMA's evaluated cost was approximately $9.5 million higher than EG&G's. We will not independently evaluate the proposals. View Decision Matter of: EG&G Team File: B-259917.2 Date: July 5, 1995 REDACTED VERSION[*] Protest that evaluation failed to adequately consider the relevance and quality of protester's prior experience, as required by the solicitation evaluation scheme, is denied where record shows agency gave due consideration to protester's prior experience. Selection of the awardee's proposal on the basis of its overall technical superiority, notwithstanding approximately 20 percent higher price, was proper where agency determined technical superiority of awardee's proposal was worth the additional cost, and cost/technical tradeoff was consistent with the evaluation scheme. Attorneys DECISION We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, sought proposals for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP required offerors to submit separate technical and cost proposals. Evaluation of the technical proposals would be based on the following factors, in descending order of importance: (1) key personnel; (2) technical approach; (3) management plan (staffing plan); and (4) corporate experience. Proposals were to be scored on the basis of adjectival ratings of "outstanding," "better," "acceptable," "marginal," and "unacceptable." The cost proposals were to be evaluated for realism. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, cost and other factors considered. The RFP warned offerors that "an acceptable proposal with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced proposal affords the government a greater overall benefit," and that "the government may elect to pay a price premium of up to approximately 35 percent to select a technically superior offer." The Navy received two proposals--JJMA's and EG&G's--both of which were included in the competitive range. The Navy conducted three rounds of discussions, and requested and received best and final offers (BAFO) after each round. The Navy evaluated the final BAFOs as follows: TECHNICAL EG&G JJMA Key Personnel better better Technical Approach better outstanding Management Plan better outstanding Corporate Experience acceptable outstanding Overall better outstanding EVALUATED COST $39,859,958 $49,298,556 In comparing EG&G's and JJMA's BAFOs, the contracting officer determined that, although JJMA's evaluated cost was approximately $9.5 million higher than EG&G's, JJMA's BAFO represented the best value in light of its (1) highest overall technical rating, and (2) outstanding ratings under each technical factor, except the most important factor (key personnel), under which EG&G and JJMA received the same ratings. The Navy thus awarded the contract to JJMA. This protest followed. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE EG&G argues that the Navy's evaluators failed to adequately consider the extent to which EG&G's performance of the contracts listed in its proposal reflected the relevance and quality of its corporate experience in performing the work contemplated here, as required by the RFP. The protester specifically maintains that, although its proposal contained "exhaustive detail on specific deliverables and results achieved" on its prior contracts "and the relevancy of those deliverables to the current contract," the evaluation documentation failed to reflect a similar level of detail. In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency evaluation of proposals, we will not independently evaluate the proposals. ACM Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-242064, Mar. 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 255. Rather, as the determination of the proposals is primarily a matter of agency discretion, we will review an evaluation only to determine whether it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Columbia Research Corp., B-247073; B-247073.2, Apr. 23, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 385. The evaluation of EG&G's corporate experience was adequately documented.