DCT, Inc.

B-261894.2 Nov 22, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights There is no basis for concluding that awardee's proposal misled agency concerning prospective employment of a particular individual as project manager (who withdrew from working as project manager after the award was made) where. The solicitation was issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside [1] on December 22. Offerors were to submit separate technical. One of which was "experience/qualifications. The technical factors were worth a total of 100 points and were more important than price. Six proposals were submitted by the February 23 closing time. Discussions were conducted in writing. Best and final offers (BAFOs) were submitted and evaluated. Its evaluated price was $14. Its evaluated price was $13. View Decision Matter of: DCT, Inc. File: B-261894.2 Date: November 22, 1995 Awardee's proposal satisfied a solicitation requirement that the offerors provide resumes for key personnel where the awardee provided resumes for the project manager, quality control officer, and personnel responsible for the major functional areas; solicitation did not require that offerors submit resumes for other personnel. There is no basis for concluding that awardee's proposal misled agency concerning prospective employment of a particular individual as project manager (who withdrew from working as project manager after the award was made) where, although individual involved submitted conflicting affidavits in connection with the protest, other evidence corroborates version stating that awardee discussed employment with the individual and that he gave the firm permission to submit his resume for project manager position. Attorneys DECISION DCT, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NVT Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 222-95-2002(P), issued by the National Center for Toxicological Research, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for operations and maintenance services at its facilities in Jeffersonville, Arkansas. DCT argues that the agency improperly evaluated NVT's proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation was issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside [1] on December 22, 1994. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract consisting of a number of line items, for a phase-in period of 1 month and a base year, with 4 option years. Offerors were to submit separate technical, management, and business proposals. The RFP listed three technical factors to be considered, one of which was "experience/qualifications," which included as subfactors "corporate ability" and "individual qualifications." The technical factors were worth a total of 100 points and were more important than price, but price would increase in importance as the proposals become more technically equal. Six proposals were submitted by the February 23 closing time, and the technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the technical proposals and established a competitive range which included three offerors, including those of NVT and DCT. Both the TEP and the cost advisory activity evaluated the price proposals. Discussions were conducted in writing, and best and final offers (BAFOs) were submitted and evaluated. DCT's proposal received a technical score of 66 points, and its evaluated price was $14,612,552.90. NVT's proposal received a technical score of 65.2 points, and its evaluated price was $13,571,381.96. (The third offeror submitted two proposals which were higher-rated technically, but both were ultimately deemed not to warrant the associated price premium, and thus are not relevant here.) After the proposals of NVT and DCT were determined to be essentially technically equal, award was made to NVT based on its lower cost. DCT challenges the evaluation of NVT's proposal on the ground that, although NVT failed to include in its proposal the resumes of craftspersons, as allegedly required by the RFP, the TEP failed to downgrade NVT's proposal for this omission. The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily within the discretion of the contracting agency; we will review an evaluation only to ensure that it is reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme. See Electrolux SARL, B-248742, Sept. 21, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 192; CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 454. The evaluation of NVT's individual qualifications was both reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP. Contrary to DCT's understanding, the RFP simply did not require that offerors submit resumes of individual crafts personnel. Under the RFP, offerors were to include in their management proposals resumes of only the key personnel, defined in the RFP as the "project manager, quality control officer, and personnel responsible for the major functional areas." NVT's proposal included resumes for the six key managerial personnel who would lead the phase-in period.