Loral Systems Company

B-270755 Apr 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where review of the agency's evaluation documentation shows that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and related to the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where proposals in the competitive range were rated superior to protester's and protester's proposed cost was substantially higher than that of the competitive range proposals. BACKGROUND VTS 2000 is to be an open system with sensors. Decision support tools that will allow the Coast Guard to monitor vessel traffic and disseminate information. The project will consist of two phases. View Decision Matter of: Loral Systems Company File: B-270755 Date: April 17, 1996 *Redacted Decision Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where review of the agency's evaluation documentation shows that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and related to the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where proposals in the competitive range were rated superior to protester's and protester's proposed cost was substantially higher than that of the competitive range proposals. Attorneys DECISION Loral Systems Company protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-94-R- AVT001, issued by the Coast Guard for the design, installation, and maintenance of VTS (vessel traffic system) 2000, a vessel management and navigation safety system. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND VTS 2000 is to be an open system with sensors, communications links, and decision support tools that will allow the Coast Guard to monitor vessel traffic and disseminate information. The project will consist of two phases. Phase I, which may involve multiple fixed-priced contracts, will be a design effort. At the conclusion of phase I, a single system integration contractor will be selected for award via exercise of a phase II option. During phase II, the design will be completed and the system installed and maintained by the contractor at selected ports. The RFP contemplates the award of contracts to the offerors whose proposals, conforming to the requirements of the statement of work, are determined to be the most advantageous to the government, considering the following evaluation areas, listed in descending order of importance, and evaluation factors: 1. Corporate experience, past performance and management A. Corporate experience B. Past performance C. Management 2. Technical D. System architecture E. Design F. Integrated support 3. Cost Each of the evaluation factors includes subfactors. The agency evaluated the initial proposals, assigning to each proposal ratings of "exceptional," "acceptable," "marginal," or "unacceptable" under each of the evaluation subfactors, factors and areas. After the evaluation, the Coast Guard issued to Loral and other offerors numerous questions that the agency labeled "clarification requests." In Loral's case, the agency sent the firm five letters that contained a total of 65 questions. Loral responded to those questions with approximately 400 proposal change pages. By letter of December 1, 1995, the Coast Guard informed Loral that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range because, based on a comparison to the other proposals received, Loral's proposal was "determined not to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award." That letter stated that the evaluation included consideration of Loral's clarification responses and that, in general, the proposal was excluded because it: "contained shortcomings (weaknesses or deficiencies) in the Corporate Experience and Management factors. These shortcomings, in addition to significantly evaluated costs, resulted in noncompetitive range assessment." After Loral requested additional information, in a December 7 letter the Coast Guard provided Loral with a list of evaluated shortcomings in Loral's proposal under the Corporate experience and Management evaluation factors and again noted that the cost of Loral's proposal was an issue in the competitive range exclusion. PROTEST ALLEGATIONS Loral maintains its proposal was unreasonably evaluated, and the competitive range determination was flawed because the agency improperly failed to evaluate the substantial advantages inherent in Loral's proposal. Loral also argues that, while the agency conducted discussions with Loral before excluding its proposal from the competitive range, those discussions were not meaningful since they did not cover the weaknesses in the firm's proposal that prevented Loral from having a chance for award.