American Overseas Book Co., Inc.

B-266297 Feb 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order to become acceptable. Protester whose proposal was properly found technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge the award. Where there is another technically acceptable proposal within the competitive range. Since the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. The protester contends that HHS' determination to exclude AOBC's proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable. That the subsequent award to Faxon at a higher price than AOBC proposed was improper. View Decision Matter of: American Overseas Book Co., Inc. File: B-266297 Date: February 9, 1996 Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order to become acceptable. Protester whose proposal was properly found technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge the award, where there is another technically acceptable proposal within the competitive range, since the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. Attorneys DECISION American Overseas Book Company, Inc. (AOBC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, and the subsequent award of a contract to The Faxon Company, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-95-P-(AL)-0019, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for subscription services to domestic and foreign serial publications and periodicals for users of the National Institutes of Health libraries. The protester contends that HHS' determination to exclude AOBC's proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable, and that the subsequent award to Faxon at a higher price than AOBC proposed was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for a fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a 12-month base period of performance, with up to four 1-year option periods. For each contract period, offerors were required to submit fixed unit and extended prices for all items listed in section B of the RFP and a total price. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and business (price) proposals. Section M of the RFP explained that proposals would be point-scored in accordance with the following technical evaluation criteria: (1) organizational experience (38 points); (2) technical approach (30 points); and (3) personnel qualifications (12 points), for a maximum possible technical score of 80 points. The RFP explained in detail the type of information that HHS would consider under each criterion. The RFP warned offerors to submit sufficient information to allow HHS to evaluate their proposals in accordance with the detailed criteria listed in the RFP. Price was to be evaluated by assigning the maximum number of points available (20 points) to the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price (including options), and proportionately lower scores to higher-priced proposals. Technical proposals were to receive "paramount consideration" in the award. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Five firms, including the protester, responded to the RFP. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme announced in the RFP, with the following results (point scores shown are rounded off): Point Scores Evaluated Offeror Technical Price Price Faxon 73 19 $33,279,658 B 68 19 $33,672,408 C 51 18 $34,863,908 D 54 0 (no price) AOBC 39 20 $31,809,533 The TEP found Faxon's and offeror B's proposals acceptable, while offeror C's, D's and AOBC's proposals were found technically unacceptable. Based on those results, the contracting officer retained the proposals submitted by Faxon and offeror B within the competitive range; conducted discussions with only those two offerors; and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from those two firms. Although the TEP reevaluated proposals based on BAFOs, there was little change in the final scores. Faxon's final technical score remained unchanged and its price (which remained unchanged following discussions), was assigned the maximum number of points available (20); offeror B's final technical score improved to 71 points, and its price earned a score of 19.7 points. The TEP concluded that both Faxon and offeror B could satisfy the requirement. On September 8, the contracting officer awarded the contract to Faxon. This protest followed. AOBC argues that HHS' decision to eliminate its proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable.