EBA Ernest Bland Associates

B-270496 Mar 13, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Negotiations are first conducted with the highest-ranked firm. If the agency is unable to agree with that firm as to a fair and reasonable fee. Negotiations are terminated and the second-ranked firm is invited to submit its proposed fee. The solicitation further required that firms have personnel "with a minimum of two years AutoCADD experience." [2] Regarding evaluation of offerors' submissions. The solicitation stated: "Firms responding will be considered for selection using the following criteria which is listed in descending order of importance . The submissions were evaluated and the firms were scored as follows: Offeror Score Firm A 98.0 Firm B 93.3 Firm C 87.6 Firm D 88.6 Firm E 86.0 Firm F 83.0 Firm G 77.6 Firm H 73.0 Firm I 67.8 EBA 65.0 Firm J 60.0 Firm K 58.2 Firm L 48.3 Firm M 45.5 Firm N 39.8 Firm O 38.6 Firm P 37.5 Firm Q 23.3 Based on this ranking. View Decision Matter of: EBA Ernest Bland Associates File: B-270496 Date: March 13, 1996 Agency properly excluded protester from further consideration in procurement of architect-engineering services where agency reasonably downgraded the protester's submission consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria and rated it tenth of the eighteen submissions. Attorneys DECISION EBA Ernest Bland Associates protests the Department of State's decision to exclude that firm for further consideration for award of an architect- engineering (A-E) contract under solicitation No. S-FBOAD-95-R-0213. The procurement, conducted as a set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses (SDB) under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 637(a) (1994), contemplated the award of two or three indefinite quantity contracts for computer assisted design and drafting (CADD) services. EBA contends that the agency improperly evaluated its qualifications and those of the offerors selected for further consideration. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Generally, in acquiring A-E services, a contracting agency must publicly announce its requirements, evaluate the A-E performance data and qualification statements on file as well as those submitted in response to the announcement, and select at least three firms for discussions. Negotiations are first conducted with the highest-ranked firm. If the agency is unable to agree with that firm as to a fair and reasonable fee, negotiations are terminated and the second-ranked firm is invited to submit its proposed fee, and so on. See 40 U.S.C. sec. 541 et seq. (1994); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6; ARTEL, Inc., B-248478, Aug. 21, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 120; James W. Hudson & Assocs., B-243277, July 5, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 29. Here, the agency issued the solicitation on June 28, 1995, requesting submission of standard forms (SF) 254 and 255 from interested SDB concerns. [1] The solicitation advised that the agency intended to acquire "engineering CADD drafting" for various projects and stated that the drafting requirements contemplated under this procurement included preparation of architectural, civil, landscape, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical drawings. The solicitation further required that firms have personnel "with a minimum of two years AutoCADD experience." [2] Regarding evaluation of offerors' submissions, the solicitation stated: "Firms responding will be considered for selection using the following criteria which is listed in descending order of importance -- 100 points maximum: a) specialized experience and technical competence in AutoCADD working in metric measurements - 40 points; b) specialized experience and technical competence in facilities documentation, involving multiple disciplines in office buildings, single and multifamily residences, warehouses and other support facilities - 30 points; c) previous record, within the last three (3) years, of performing work on schedule and with effective cost and quality control - 15 points." Eighteen firms, including EBA, provided submissions by the July 31 deadline. [3] The agency convened a three-member panel for purposes of evaluating the submissions. Following that panel's review, the submissions were evaluated and the firms were scored as follows: Offeror Score Firm A 98.0 Firm B 93.3 Firm C 87.6 Firm D 88.6 Firm E 86.0 Firm F 83.0 Firm G 77.6 Firm H 73.0 Firm I 67.8 EBA 65.0 Firm J 60.0 Firm K 58.2 Firm L 48.3 Firm M 45.5 Firm N 39.8 Firm O 38.6 Firm P 37.5 Firm Q 23.3 Based on this ranking, the agency selected Firms A through F for discussions and further consideration. DISCUSSION EBA first protests its exclusion from the list of firms being further considered, arguing that the agency failed to accord its submission appropriate credit.