Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.

B-270645.2 May 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency properly excluded proposal from competitive range which had no reasonable chance of receiving award because it contained significant technical weaknesses and was scored substantially below the higher-rated competitive range proposals. ACCI contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and that its proposal should have been included in the competitive range. The solicitation is for the provision of full food service and dining facility attendant service at various Fort Dix dining facilities. Proposals were to include: a general management summary. Cost was to be evaluated on the basis of realism and most probable cost (MPC). The technical factor was identified as most important and slightly more important than cost. View Decision Matter of: Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc. File: B-270645.2 Date: May 24, 1996 Agency properly excluded proposal from competitive range which had no reasonable chance of receiving award because it contained significant technical weaknesses and was scored substantially below the higher-rated competitive range proposals. Attorneys DECISION Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc. (ACCI) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF29-94-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for full food services at Fort Dix, New Jersey. ACCI contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed and that its proposal should have been included in the competitive range. We deny the protest. The solicitation is for the provision of full food service and dining facility attendant service at various Fort Dix dining facilities. Proposals were to include: a general management summary; information on organization and staffing; evidence of the offeror's past experience in food service and related support service; a detailed phase-in plan; detailed quality control plan; and a complete cost proposal addressing cost realism and other factors. The RFP contemplated award of cost-plus- award-fee contract for a base period with 4 option years. Section M advised offerors of the following technical evaluation subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: organization and staffing (considerably more important than any other subfactor); quality control and general management (of approximately equal importance); and phase-in (considerably less important). Cost was to be evaluated on the basis of realism and most probable cost (MPC). The technical factor was identified as most important and slightly more important than cost. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. Fifteen offerors including ACCI and American Service Contractors, L.P. (ASC) submitted proposals by the December 14, 1994, closing date for receipt of proposals. In late January 1995, the agency conducted a pre- award survey of ACCI. The agency conducted a technical, cost realism, and most probable cost evaluation on each proposal in April 1995. ASC's proposal received the highest score (725 points out of a possible 1,000 points). ACCI's proposal received the sixth highest score (260 points). Eleven of the offerors' proposals, including ACCI's, were rated "unsatisfactory" in at least three of the four evaluation subfactors and all were rated "unsatisfactory" on the most important subfactor, organization and staffing. The contracting officer determined that these 11 proposals failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the government's requirements. She found that the likelihood of failure was high and that only extensive discussions and proposal revisions could overcome the probability of failure. Accordingly, on September 13, the contracting officer determined that these 11 proposals did not have a reasonable chance of award and eliminated them from the competitive range. The agency notified ACCI of its elimination by letter dated November 20. [1] ACCI filed a protest with our Office, which we dismissed as premature on December 8. After receiving a debriefing in February 1996, ACCI filed this protest. [2] ACCI contends that the agency's evaluation was flawed because ACCI's proposal was technically acceptable as submitted. We find ACCI's contentions without merit. The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting them. Advanced Sys. Technology, Inc.; Eng'g and Professional Servs., Inc., B-241530; B-241530.2, Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 153. Thus, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate proposals de novo and we will not disturb that determination absent a showing that it was unreasonable or in violation of procurement laws or regulations.