Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc.

Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270499.3; B-270499.4; B-270499.5 DATE: April 18, 1996 TITLE: Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc. File: B-270499.3; B-270499.4; B-270499.5 Date:April 18, 1996 Kent C. Dugmore, Esq., Parsons, Behle & Latimer, for the protester. Granette Trent, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contention that protester's proposal for residential community corrections services should have been rated higher in the evaluation than other proposals because protester offered the only operational, accredited facility, is without merit, where solicitation required only that proposed facility be "fully operational and ready for performance to begin within 60 days" after award, and the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation did not contemplate rewarding proposals which offered an existing, operational facility. 2. Agency conducted meaningful discussions where the record shows that the agency's detailed written discussion items corresponded to the deficiencies the evaluators identified in the protester's proposal; specifically referenced the applicable sections of the solicitation's requirements where the protester's proposal was found deficient; and sufficiently alerted the protester to the specific areas of its proposal requiring further explanation. 3. Even if contracting agency should have held discussions with protester regarding weaknesses in one area of its proposal, there is no basis to object to the award decision where the record shows that even if discussions had been held and protester's proposal had been awarded the maximum number of points available in that area, the protester's proposal would not have displaced the awardee's or another offeror's higher rated proposals, both of which were lower priced. DECISION Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc. (SCCC), the incumbent, protests the award of a contract to Cornell Corrections of California, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-256-W, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for residential community corrections services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal with respect to the facilities offered, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with SCCC. The protester also requests that we reconsider our dismissal as untimely of certain issues it raised in its first supplemental protest. We deny the protests and the request for reconsideration. The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements-type, indefinite-delivery contract, for a 12-month base period, with up to three 1-year option periods. Section M of the RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of relative importance (subfactors within each factor are shown in parenthesis): technical (reports/policy/procedure; facility; overall programs approach); cost; and management (personnel and staffing; experience and structure). Offerors were instructed to submit proposals in two separate volumes--volume I, the technical proposal and volume II, the business proposal. Section L of the RFP provided specific, detailed instructions on the contents of each volume. In addition to evaluating written proposals, the RFP explained, the agency would also conduct a site visit of the offeror's facility to determine whether the proposed facility was in compliance, or capable of becoming compliant, with the RFP requirements. The RFP instructed offerors to respond by addressing each chapter of the statement of work (SOW) "section-by-section." Offerors were warned not to merely repeat or paraphrase the SOW, or to simply agree to comply with the SOW. Rather, they were to provide direct, concise descriptions of their capabilities and proposed approaches to meeting the objectives of the SOW. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be "in the best interest" of the government. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated proposals by assigning numerical ratings to the technical and management factors (for a maximum of 700 points). Cost was numerically scored by assigning the maximum number of points available (300) to the proposal offering the lowest price, with higher priced proposals earning proportionately lower scores. The following is the result of the final evaluation for the four offerors whose proposals were retained within the competitive range. Offeror Tech.