Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc.

B-270090.3 Feb 13, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. The Navy was not required to conduct discussions with the protester. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. That the agency's cost/technical tradeoff was flawed. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a competitive. Cost was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Cost was not point-scored. Was slightly higher than LLD's. Remtech was awarded the contract. This protest followed. [1] PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS LLD argues that the agency's evaluation of competing proposals was flawed in several respects. View Decision Matter of: Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc. File: B-270090.3 Date: February 13, 1996 Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. Where the solicitation announced that the Department of the Navy intended to evaluate proposals and make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions, and the Navy reasonably determined, on the basis of it evaluation of the initial proposals, that the technically superior, slightly higher-cost offeror represented the best value under the solicitation's evaluation scheme, the Navy was not required to conduct discussions with the protester. Attorneys DECISION Lloyd-Lamont Design, Inc. (LLD) protests the award of a contract to Remtech Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00030-96-R-0200, issued by the Department of the Navy for training acquisition and support. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable; that the Navy improperly failed to conduct discussions; and that the agency's cost/technical tradeoff was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a competitive, small disadvantaged business set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994). The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract for training acquisition and support services related to strategic weapons systems (SWS), for a base year with options for performing various requirements through fiscal year 2000. Section M of the RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) personnel; (2) technical approach; (3) corporate experience; (4) management approach; (5) transition plan; and (6) facilities and equipment. Within each factor, the RFP listed subfactors of varying importance. Cost was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The RFP stated that in making the "best value" determination, the agency would apply a tradeoff formula announced in the solicitation which permitted the agency to pay up to a 30 percent premium for a technically superior proposal. Three firms, including the protester and the awardee, submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Each offeror proposed a different major subcontractor, all of which had been incumbents under prior contracts for these services. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated technical proposals by assigning numerical point scores (ranging from 0 to 100 points) under each subfactor; cost was not point-scored. A source selection advisory council (SSAC) reviewed the SSEB's results and computed a final weighted point score for each proposal. LLD's proposal earned a total weighted score of 90.596 points; Remtech's proposal earned a total score of 93.402 points. Remtech's proposed cost, $10,417,985, was slightly higher than LLD's, $10,257,424--a difference of $160,561 over the life of the contract, including options. Based on the results of the evaluation, the SSAC concluded that Remtech's proposal offered the best value to the government, and recommended award to that firm. The source selection authority (SSA) agreed with that recommendation, and on September 28, Remtech was awarded the contract. The agency debriefed LLD on October 3, and this protest followed. [1] PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS LLD argues that the agency's evaluation of competing proposals was flawed in several respects, particularly with respect to the evaluation of its proposal under the "personnel" and "management approach" factors. Specifically, the protester argues that its proposal deserved a higher rating because of its "superior, qualified personnel" and "proven staffing approach," and that the agency treated Remtech's proposal differently in the evaluation.