Conrex, Inc.

B-266060.2 Feb 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights In a best value procurement where the solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost. 000-point technical evaluation scheme and provided that technical factors were more important than price in the award selection. Twenty-nine proposals were submitted by the June 6 closing date. Price proposals were evaluated separately for completeness. Prezant's proposal received the highest technical score of 947 points and its price was $9. Conrex's proposal was ranked 18th technically. Was the lowest of these 18 offers. While the agency determined that Conrex's price was complete and realistic. It was unable to determine the reasonableness of Conrex's price because the portion of its proposal that was found deficient. View Decision Matter of: Conrex, Inc. File: B-266060.2 Date: February 7, 1996 In a best value procurement where the solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost, agency reasonably evaluated protester's technical proposal as containing numerous weaknesses and deficiencies and reasonably concluded that award should be made to a significantly technically superior, higher priced offeror. Attorneys DECISION Conrex, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Prezant Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA67-95-R0023, for asbestos and lead-based paint surveying services. Conrex argues that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal and unreasonably selected Prezant for award despite Prezant's higher price. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside on May 3, 1995, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The RFP set forth a 1,000-point technical evaluation scheme and provided that technical factors were more important than price in the award selection. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the following technical evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Capability and Knowledge of Applicable Regulations; (2) Professional Qualifications of Key Personnel; (3) Equipment and Facilities; and (4) Documentation of Survey Results. The RFP advised that the Army intended to award a contract based on initial proposals without conducting discussions, and encouraged offerors to submit their best offers in their initial proposals. Twenty-nine proposals were submitted by the June 6 closing date, including those of Prezant and Conrex. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated technical proposals and assigned a numerical rating to each factor listed in the RFP. After the TEP totaled the scores for the various factors, the TEP discussed the actual total point score warranted by each proposal, and in certain instances, adjusted the final total point scores. Price proposals were evaluated separately for completeness, reasonableness, and realism. Prezant's proposal received the highest technical score of 947 points and its price was $9,586,984.40. Conrex's proposal was ranked 18th technically, with a technical score of 360 points, and its price of $8,775,610, was the lowest of these 18 offers. Among other things, the TEP found that Conrex's proposal did not meet the minimum requirements for the "Professional Qualifications of Key Personnel," and the "Equipment and Facilities" factors. While the agency determined that Conrex's price was complete and realistic, it was unable to determine the reasonableness of Conrex's price because the portion of its proposal that was found deficient, concerning key personnel, constituted the largest price component under the RFP. The agency concluded that discussions were not necessary and that Prezant's proposal represented the best overall value to the government. Award was made to Prezant on August 11, and Conrex filed an agency-level protest on September 7. This protest to our Office was filed shortly thereafter. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Conrex challenges the evaluation of its own proposal on various grounds. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will only question the agency's evaluation where it lacks a reasonable basis or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria for award. DeLima Assocs., B-258278.2, Dec. 20, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 253. The agency concluded that Conrex's proposal contained numerous weaknesses and deficiencies that led to its low score. While Conrex argues that it is a well-qualified offeror and basically objects to any downgrading of its proposal, the record provides no basis to find the evaluation of Conrex's proposal unfair or unreasonable; to the contrary, the record shows that the agency performed a reasonable technical evaluation consistent with the evaluation criteria.