Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc.

B-271619 Jul 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive range where the proposal did not adequately respond to request for statement of work and approach to performing statement of work for unit conversion such that this aspect of proposal would have to be completely rewritten to be considered for award. Air Force Test Center test and evaluation support. [1] It also required offerors to develop a SOW for Unit Conversion Support pursuant to instructions which were provided. Offerors were required to submit a technical proposal which addressed each SOW (including the unit conversion SOW). The technical proposal was to be evaluated against the following criteria: Technical Approach PWS Approach Manhour Estimates Staff Technical Expertise Depth of Knowledge Staff Experience Demonstrated Corporate Experience Areas of Experience Quantity and Level of Experience Performance The technical proposals were assigned a color-coded rating for each factor for each SOW. View Decision Matter of: Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc. File: B-271619 Date: July 15, 1996 Protester's proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive range where the proposal did not adequately respond to request for statement of work and approach to performing statement of work for unit conversion such that this aspect of proposal would have to be completely rewritten to be considered for award. Attorneys DECISION Engineering Systems Consultants, Inc. (ESCI) protests the elimination from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-95-R-0024, issued by the National Guard Bureau for technical support and management assistance. We deny the protest. The solicitation included statements of work (SOW) for long range planning support, acquisition technical support and management assistance, and Air Force Test Center test and evaluation support. [1] It also required offerors to develop a SOW for Unit Conversion Support pursuant to instructions which were provided. Offerors were required to submit a technical proposal which addressed each SOW (including the unit conversion SOW), a management proposal, a past performance proposal, and a cost proposal. The technical proposal was to be evaluated against the following criteria: Technical Approach PWS Approach Manhour Estimates Staff Technical Expertise Depth of Knowledge Staff Experience Demonstrated Corporate Experience Areas of Experience Quantity and Level of Experience Performance The technical proposals were assigned a color-coded rating for each factor for each SOW, for the factor overall and for the technical proposal overall. [2] The evaluators also assigned proposal and performance risk ratings under each factor. The solicitation provided that the government would make up to three contract awards on a best value basis with technical factors considered most important in the award decision. Four proposals, including the protester's, were received. Following the initial evaluation, ESCI's proposal was rated orange overall with high performance and proposal risk. In the technical area, ESCI's proposal was rated orange overall, with a yellow rating under technical approach and orange ratings under staff technical expertise and corporate experience. The agency concluded that ESCI's proposal could only be made acceptable with a major rewrite and therefore excluded it from the competitive range. ESCI argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal, and that any deficiencies the agency did find could have been corrected during discussions had it been included in the competitive range. In reviewing challenges to the exclusion of a proposal from the competitive range, we will not reevaluate the proposal; rather, our review is limited to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. International Resources Corp., B-259992, Apr. 14, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 200. Agencies properly may eliminate a proposal from the competitive range where the proposal would require major revision to become acceptable. W.N. Hunter & Assocs.; Cajar Defense Support Co., B-237259; B-237259.2, Jan. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 52. The agency found a number of deficiencies in ESCI's response to the different tasks. Its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range, however, primarily based on its response to the unit conversion task. As a result of the defense downsizing and reconsideration of its role and mission, the Air National Guard (ANG) is changing the functions of several operational and support units. This solicitation required offerors to provide a SOW to support the ANG's conversion of an F-16 unit into a KC-135 unit. The instructions outlined the key tasks that offerors were expected to incorporate in the proposed SOW.