The Hines-Ike Company

B-270693 Mar 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order to become acceptable. Protester whose proposal was properly found technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge the award where there is another technically acceptable proposal within the competitive range. Since the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. The protester contends that HUD's decision to exclude HI's proposal was unreasonable. That the award to North American at a higher price than HI proposed was improper. View Decision Matter of: The Hines-Ike Company File: B-270693 Date: March 15, 1996 Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order to become acceptable. Protester whose proposal was properly found technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge the award where there is another technically acceptable proposal within the competitive range, since the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. Attorneys DECISION The Hines-Ike Company (HI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, and the subsequent award of a contract to North American Title Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 4-95-045, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing services. The protester contends that HUD's decision to exclude HI's proposal was unreasonable, and that the award to North American at a higher price than HI proposed was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a base period of performance, with up to four 1-year option periods. For each contract period, an offeror was required to submit a fixed unit price per closing. Offerors were required to submit proposals in two parts--part I was to consist of the technical/management proposal; part II was the business (price) proposal. Section L of the RFP instructed offerors to address three separate sections under part I of their proposals: (1) technical and management ability; (2) experience; and (3) conflicting or multiple use of contractor resources. Each section was further subdivided into several subsections. The RFP specifically instructed offerors on the type of evidence and documentation required to be submitted with the proposal in support of each subsection requirement. Section M of the RFP explained that technical proposals would be point- scored, and set out the evaluation factors with their corresponding point values. The RFP stated that the technical/management area was more important than price (which was not point-scored), and that the government might award a contract to an offeror submitting other than the lowest-priced proposal. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Three firms, including the protester, responded to the RFP. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation. Of the maximum number of points available (145), North American and a second offeror's proposal earned 123 points each following the initial evaluation; both proposals were found technically acceptable. The protester's proposal received a total of 53 points, and was found technically unacceptable. Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the contracting officer eliminated HI's proposal from further consideration. The agency then conducted discussions with the two offerors whose proposals remained in the competitive range; requested best and final offers (BAFO) from those two firms; and reevaluated proposals based on BAFOs. The agency determined that North American submitted the proposal most advantageous to the government and awarded the contract to that firm. This protest to our Office followed a debriefing by the agency. The protester contends that the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range was based on a flawed evaluation. HI also contends that the agency should have discussed the TEP's initial findings with the firm. An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written and that affirmatively establishes its merits or run the risk of having the proposal rejected as technically unacceptable. Source AV, Inc., B-234521, June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 578. Offers that are technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable are not required to be included in the competitive range for discussion purposes. W.N.