DuVALL Services Company

B-265698.2 Feb 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting agency's determination to exclude protester's low-rated proposal from a revised competitive range was reasonable where protester. The requirement was for on-site full service maintenance. North Carolina. [1] The RFP was issued on February 24. Technical proposals were required to be evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) qualification of service personnel (30 of 100 possible points). The RFP stated that evaluation of technical proposals would be of "paramount consideration" in the award decision and that price would become significant only in the event that two or more offerors were rated approximately equal technically. Were received by the May 2. Initial proposals were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation panel (TEP). View Decision Matter of: DuVALL Services Company File: B-265698.2 Date: February 7, 1996 Contracting agency's determination to exclude protester's low-rated proposal from a revised competitive range was reasonable where protester, which proposed a higher price than the proposed awardee at the time of its exclusion, only offered staffing amounting to approximately [deleted] of the staffing offered by the proposed awardee even after contracting agency sent the protester a discussion item questioning the adequacy of its staffing. Attorneys DECISION DuVALL Services Company (DSC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-95-P(BB)- 0109, issued by the National Institutes of Health, for maintenance and repair services for government-owned Dupont/Sorvall scientific instruments. We deny the protest. The requirement was for on-site full service maintenance, including preventive maintenance, inspection, and emergency repair of the scientific instruments located at Bethesda, Maryland, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [1] The RFP was issued on February 24, 1995, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for one year with four 1-year options at the Bethesda site. The RFP required emergency repairs to be completed within 48 hours. Technical proposals were required to be evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) qualification of service personnel (30 of 100 possible points); [2] (2) the organization's qualifications (25 points); emergency response (25 points); and availability of spare parts (20 points). The RFP stated that evaluation of technical proposals would be of "paramount consideration" in the award decision and that price would become significant only in the event that two or more offerors were rated approximately equal technically. Four proposals, including the proposals of DSC and E.I. Dupont de Nemours Co., Inc., were received by the May 2, 1995, closing date. On May 25, initial proposals were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation panel (TEP), which submitted a report on May 30 setting forth the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. The TEP rated Dupont acceptable; DSC and another firm were rated marginally acceptable, and the remaining offeror was rated unacceptable. On June 9, the agency established a competitive range of three offers consisting of the acceptable and marginally acceptable offers. The protester's proposal was higher priced than Dupont's proposal [deleted]. [3] In making her competitive range determination, the contracting officer stated as follows concerning DSC's initial technical proposal: "[Deleted] technicians resumes were provided with [deleted] specific evidence of training with Dupont/Sorvall equipment. [This offeror] appears to have missed or ignored the size and scope of the instruments to be maintained. [The firm] propose[s] to have [deleted] available . . . [and appears] to be contesting the intent and content of the RFP. . . . There is no tangible plan or evidence cited that a 48 hour repair time will be met if multiple failures occur in parallel with [deleted] technicians available." [4] As a result, the contracting officer sent the protester the following discussion question: "Do you believe that [deleted] is enough to perform the requirements as stated in the RFP?" The agency received revised technical responses from the offerors to the discussion questions on June 16. Revised prices were not solicited or received. In its revised technical proposal, the protester stated "[y]es, we do believe that [deleted] is enough to perform the requirements. . . . By this we mean that [deleted] would be assigned . . . to handle emergency service calls and preventive maintenance visits and [deleted] will be assigned to assist with emergency service and preventive maintenance as required." The protester further stated that [deleted] would be required only to support both sites solicited by the RFP but that it was "bidding" on only the Bethesda location.