Ogden Support Services, Inc.

B-270354 Feb 28, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Level-of-effort contract for a 5-year contract period. [1] A best value basis for award was stated with technical/management. The security factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. The technical/management factor was said to be three times more important than experience/past performance factor. Of which the staffing plan subfactor was identified as being substantially more important than any of the other subfactors. Only stated that cost would become more important as the difference in technical evaluation scores decreases and that cost "may become" determinative when proposals are technically equal. [2] The agency received seven proposals. Were included in the competitive range. The initial technical scores and proposed costs of the competitive range proposals were: Offeror Technical Score (1. View Decision Matter of: Ogden Support Services, Inc. File: B-270354 Date: February 28, 1996 Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester where it did not identify during discussions the significant evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies in the protester's proposal that needed to be addressed in order for the protester's proposal reasonably to be considered for award. Attorneys DECISION Ogden Support Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to SSI Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-Z06, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for operations and maintenance services at the CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, and at 13 other facilities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Ogden protests the CIA's evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision. We sustain the protest because the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, level-of-effort contract for a 5-year contract period. [1] A best value basis for award was stated with technical/management, experience/past performance, security, and cost identified as the evaluation factors. The security factor was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. The technical/management factor was said to be three times more important than experience/past performance factor. The technical/management factor listed a number of subfactors, of which the staffing plan subfactor was identified as being substantially more important than any of the other subfactors. The RFP did not identify the relative weight of the cost factor, but only stated that cost would become more important as the difference in technical evaluation scores decreases and that cost "may become" determinative when proposals are technically equal. [2] The agency received seven proposals, of which four, including Ogden's and SSI's, were included in the competitive range. The initial technical scores and proposed costs of the competitive range proposals were: Offeror Technical Score (1,000 points maximum)Cost SSI [DELETED] [DELETED] Offeror A [DELETED] [DELETED] B [DELETED] [DELETED] Ogden [DELETED] [DELETED] Ogden's relatively low technical ranking reflected the technical evaluators' determination that Ogden's staffing plan contained a number of significant weaknesses and deficiencies, including proposed organizational structure and overall inadequate staffing. Written discussions were conducted with each competitive range offeror based on questions prepared by the technical evaluators. Most of these questions requested general clarification or additional information. For example, of the nine questions directed to Ogden concerning its technical proposal, four were general questions asked of all four offerors and one identified a typographical error in an acronym. The remaining questions identified a few staffing deficiencies, which were similar in all four proposals, such as that proposed personnel for specifically identified categories fell one or a few persons below the minimum required level (e.g., electricians, Central Plant staff), and also requested additional information. No question to Ogden identified the agency's concerns with Ogden's overall staffing or organizational structure. The agency requested and received best and final offers (BAFO), which were evaluated as follows: Offeror Technical Score Cost SSI [DELETED] $87,655,923 Offeror A [DELETED] [DELETED] B [DELETED] [DELETED] Ogden [DELETED] [DELETED] In selecting SSI for award, the source selection authority (SSA) found: "[Ogden's] staffing plan is marginal. Its proposed organizational structure fragments the trade shops and external facilities. [DELETED]. The total staff of [DELETED] is less than the [g]overnment estimate of [DELETED]. Much of this deficit results from an excessively small management staff [DELETED]. This creates significant span of control concerns for many management positions within the organizations.