Matter of: Ogden Support Services, Inc.

B-270354.2 Oct 29, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contract award for operations and maintenance services, contending that the bid evaluations and source selection decision were unreasonable. GAO held that: (1) CIA reasonably evaluated the protester's technical proposal regarding its personnel qualifications, contract phase-in plan, and past performance; (2) CIA properly considered certain of the protester's technical weaknesses under several evaluation subfactors, since they were relevant and reasonably related to each evaluation criterion; (3) there was no merit to the protester's contention that CIA lowered its evaluation score despite comments stating that its proposal had improved; (4) CIA was not precluded from considering any proposal risk arising from the protester's technical approach or demonstrated lack of understanding that was intrinsic to the stated evaluation factors; (5) the solicitation stated that CIA would not reopen discussions to resolve technical deficiencies first introduced in the best-and-final offers; and (6) the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the evaluation of the awardee's bid, since it would not be in line for award even if its protest was sustained. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part. View Decision Matter of: Ogden Support Services, Inc. File: B-270354.2 Date: October 29, 1996 * Redacted Decision DIGEST 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 Compound, Langley, Virginia, and at 13 facilities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Ogden contends that the evaluations and source selection decision were unreasonable. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. The agency previously awarded a contract to SSI under this RFP. Ogden, the incumbent contractor, protested the award on a number of grounds. Our Office sustained that protest in Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 175, on the basis that the CIA failed to conduct meaningful discussions. Our decision also noted other problems with the procurement: the RFP did not disclose the relative evaluation weight of cost, and the evaluation documentation did not support the technical ratings. We recommended that the agency amend the solicitation, reopen discussions with the competitive range offerors, request revised best and final offers (BAFO), and make a new source selection decision based upon the evaluation of the revised BAFOs. The CIA subsequently amended the RFP. The amended RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, level-of-effort contract for 1 year with 4 option years. The RFP stated a best value basis for award with all non-cost evaluation factors combined being significantly more important than cost. The non-cost evaluation factors were technical/management, experience/past performance, and security. Security was to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and technical/management was three times more important than experience/past performance. The technical/management factor contained the following subfactors listed in descending order of importance: (1) staffing plan; (2) contract phase-in plan; (3) logistics management plan; (4) training plan; (5) quality control plan; and (6) health, safety and environmental plan. The experience/past performance factor contained the following subfactors: (1) company experience and (2) record of past performance. The RFP also identified a number of sub-subfactors under each subfactor. On March 25, 1996, the agency reopened discussions with the four competitive range offerors. Written discussion questions were sent to each offeror addressing the weaknesses, deficiencies, and concerns which the agency had determined to exist in the proposals upon which the prior source selection was based, and offerors were invited to submit questions concerning the RFP or the written discussion questions. All the offerors submitted questions, to which the CIA responded in writing. The CIA then requested submission of best and final offers (BAFO) by May 6. BAFOs were to be complete proposals and not just a statement of revisions to the terms of the previously submitted proposals. Offerors were advised that CIA intended to evaluate BAFOs and make award without further discussions unless the contracting officer determined that further discussions were necessary. All four offerors (Ogden, SSI, [DELETED], and [DELETED] submitted revised BAFOs.