McWane and Company, Inc.

B-270374 Mar 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The procuring agency properly determined that the protester's low priced proposal was technically unacceptable where the protester failed to provide sufficient information. The contractor is to provide qualified personnel on-site during normal office hours. The RFP also stated that contractor personnel will be supplied with the necessary equipment and supplies to perform the property management task. A best value basis for award was stated. The following technical evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance: qualifications of project personnel. Offerors were informed that technical considerations were of primary importance and that a higher-priced proposal could be accepted if technical considerations made the offer most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: McWane and Company, Inc. File: B-270374 Date: March 1, 1996 The procuring agency properly determined that the protester's low priced proposal was technically unacceptable where the protester failed to provide sufficient information, as required by the solicitation, to allow the agency to evaluate a required key person and the protester's proposal demonstrated a lack of understanding of the contract requirements. Attorneys DECISION McWane and Company, Inc. (MACI) protests the award of a contract to Consulting and Program Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTNH22-95-R-04122 for inventory and property control support services. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-priced contract for 1 base with 4 option years. The RFP's statement of work described the agency's need for a full-time inventory clerk, with supervision as necessary, to support the overall maintenance of an existing automated property control system for approximately 10,000 items of non-expendable personal property located at headquarters, field facilities, and contractor sites. The contractor is to provide qualified personnel on-site during normal office hours, not to exceed 40 hours per week. The solicitation included the agency's standard operating procedures for property management, and requires the contractor to process incoming property, excess property, and transfers of property, and to perform an annual inventory in accordance with these standard operating procedures. The RFP also stated that contractor personnel will be supplied with the necessary equipment and supplies to perform the property management task. A best value basis for award was stated, and the following technical evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance: qualifications of project personnel; program management; and experience of the organization. Offerors were informed that technical considerations were of primary importance and that a higher-priced proposal could be accepted if technical considerations made the offer most advantageous to the government. Offerors were also informed that the government intended to make award on initial proposals without conducting discussions and, accordingly, offerors were cautioned to submit proposals on the most favorable basis. The agency received proposals from six offerors, including MACI and the awardee. Three proposals, including the awardee's, were determined to be technically acceptable. MACI's proposal and another offeror's proposal was found to be technically unacceptable but with correction potential, and another offeror's proposal was found to be technically unacceptable and not correctable. Regarding MACI's proposal, the agency found that MACI had provided insufficient information to allow the agency to evaluate the qualifications of its proposed inventory clerk. Also, MACI's proposal was "geared toward the implementation, start-up, and management of a new property system," rather than on-site support for the agency's existing system; in the agency's judgment, this demonstrated a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements. The contracting officer determined that given the adequate price competition obtained from the technically acceptable offerors, discussions were not necessary. Award was made to CPMS, the firm submitting the lowest-priced and highest-rated offer. MACI requested and received a debriefing, and this protest followed. MACI challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserts that it is entitled to award as the offeror submitting the lowest price. [1] In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency's evaluation of proposals, it is not the function of our Office to independently weigh the merits of the offers. Microeconomic Applications, Inc., B-258633.2, Feb. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 82.