Caltech Service Corporation

B-261044.4 Dec 14, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably evaluated and considered the relative strengths of the proposals under a best value evaluation scheme in concluding that no proposal was significantly superior to the awardee's low-priced proposal. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. Fixed prices were solicited for the bulk of the work. Not-to-exceed cost ceilings were specified for the several cost reimbursement line items. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was determined. The following factors were listed in descending order of importance. The only element was "The position descriptions for the Fire Chief. View Decision Matter of: Caltech Service Corporation File: B-261044.4 Date: December 14, 1995 * REDACTED DECISION Agency reasonably evaluated and considered the relative strengths of the proposals under a best value evaluation scheme in concluding that no proposal was significantly superior to the awardee's low-priced proposal, and thus reasonably found that proposal to represent the best value to the government. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Caltech Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to Cabaco, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-93-R-0028, for the operation and maintenance of the common area at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on a small disadvantaged business set-aside basis, sought operation and maintenance services, including security, airfield maintenance, fire protection/crash rescue, and industrial facilities maintenance and engineering services to be performed in accordance with the standards in the RFP's performance work statement (PWS) for a base year with 4 option years. Firm, fixed prices were solicited for the bulk of the work, and not-to-exceed cost ceilings were specified for the several cost reimbursement line items. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was determined, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations, to be most advantageous to the government. The following factors were listed in descending order of importance, with the subfactors within each area being of equal importance: (1) Technical (a) fire protection and crash rescue (b) security (c) maintenance/supply (d) engineering (2) Management (a) organization and management (b) government furnished property (c) safety (3) Cost The RFP also set forth various elements corresponding to the requirements in the PWS that would be evaluated under each subfactor. For example, with regard to the fire protection and crash rescue subfactor, the only element was "The position descriptions for the Fire Chief, Assistant Chief for Training, Assistant Chief for Operations and Emergency Medical Technicians will be evaluated for compliance with the PWS." Each subfactor was to be evaluated under a color/adjectival rating scheme considering the designated elements of the subfactor. [2] Each subfactor was also to be evaluated for proposal risk--to assess the risk associated with an offeror's proposed approach--and for performance risk--to assess the probability of successful performance based on the "offeror's relevant past and present performance." [3] The color/adjectival rating, proposal risk, and performance risk were to be weighted equally for each evaluation factor except cost. For cost, the Air Force determined each offeror's most probable cost (MPC), [4] which was to be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and completeness. The RFP specifically stated that the MPC would be a significant factor in the source selection decision and would be evaluated equally with the performance risk rating for each offeror's cost. The RFP also noted that the subjective judgment of the government evaluators is implicit in the evaluation process. A source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated each subfactor element for soundness of approach and understanding/compliance with the minimum requirements of the RFP utilizing a plus (exceeds standard)/check (meets standard)/ minus (does not meet standard) rating system. Evaluators assessed each proposal's technical strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks (i.e., proposal risk), and then assigned a color/adjectival and risk rating for each subfactor. In addition, a performance risk analysis group (PRAG) conducted a performance risk assessment of the relevant present and past performance of each offeror and their major subcontractor(s) for each subfactor.