R&A Technical Services

B-270988 May 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency performed appropriate price analysis under solicitation which contemplated award of a fixed-price contract where the agency determined that the awardee's price was reasonable on the basis of a comparison to the other prices offered and the independent government price estimate. The RFP stated that technical approach was the most important factor. The evaluators reported their findings to the contracting officer. [4] The numerical rankings and prices were as follows: Offeror Technical/Management Score Price [5] R&A [DELETED] [DELETED] Offeror A [DELETED] [DELETED] Mellor [DELETED] [DELETED] The evaluators' narrative report noted as follows: "[R&A's] proposal was complete and addressed [all] technical and management criteria required by the RFP [and was the best overall proposal]. View Decision Matter of: R&A Technical Services File: B-270988 Date: May 7, 1996 * Redacted Decision Where contracting agency reasonably rated protester's and awardee's proposals as technically equal, contracting officer properly made award of a fixed-price contract to the lower-priced offeror. Agency performed appropriate price analysis under solicitation which contemplated award of a fixed-price contract where the agency determined that the awardee's price was reasonable on the basis of a comparison to the other prices offered and the independent government price estimate. Attorneys DECISION R&A Technical Services protests the award of a contract to Mellor Engineering Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-95-R- 0101, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside by the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, Alabama for general analysis, detection and monitoring services of a chemical stockpile located at Tooele Army Depot. The protester principally contends that the Army failed to make a proper price/technical tradeoff in selecting the lower priced, lower technically rated offeror for award. We deny the protest. The RFP stated the agency would award a contract that would represent the best value to the government, based on the evaluation of technical and price factors. [1] The RFP, contemplating the award of a fixed price contract for a base year and 4 option years, required the submission of technical and price proposals by each offeror. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation criteria: (1) experience; (2) personnel; (3) management; (4) past performance; and (5) technical approach. The RFP stated that technical approach was the most important factor, followed by, in descending order of importance, experience, personnel, management and staffing categories of skilled personnel, including, for example, chemist, gas chromatograph specialist, and technical editor. For each category, the RFP contained a description of staffing duties. Concerning price, the RFP stated that price would not be a scored factor, but would be evaluated as to reasonableness and affordability. [3] The RFP advised offerors that the total price for the base and option years would be evaluated. The RFP also required offerors to submit a contract pricing proposal which showed the "rationale followed in development of direct labor, overhead, G&A and profit." The RFP contained a Service Contract Act (SCA) Wage Determination and cautioned offerors that their employee base rates had to conform with this wage determination. Six firms submitted initial proposals by the closing date of November 16, 1995. The agency's Technical/Management Evaluation Board evaluated initial proposals. On December 6, the evaluators reported their findings to the contracting officer. [4] The numerical rankings and prices were as follows: Offeror Technical/Management Score Price [5] R&A [DELETED] [DELETED] Offeror A [DELETED] [DELETED] Mellor [DELETED] [DELETED] The evaluators' narrative report noted as follows: "[R&A's] proposal was complete and addressed [all] technical and management criteria required by the RFP [and was the best overall proposal]. [Mellor and Offeror A] were scored lower than R&A because they did not fully address or demonstrate their abilities to satisfy all the requirements of the RFP. . . . Recommendation: R&A has the highest Technical/Management score and is ranked first. [R&A] submitted a proposal with no deficiencies, or weaknesses/disadvantages. [Its] proposal was best overall because [it] provided more detailed information than the other offerors. [Offeror A] submitted an excellent proposal and had no deficiencies with a few weakness/disadvantages. . . . [Mellor] provided an excellent proposal [and] provided a proposal with no deficiencies and only a couple of weakness or disadvantages.