Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

B-271741.2 Aug 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Allegation that agency unreasonably identified five weaknesses in the protester's proposal is dismissed for failure to state a basis of protest where the protester did not identify the weaknesses and offered no specific challenge to the agency's assessment even though the protester received a debriefing during which the agency explained its evaluation conclusions. This duty is satisfied when the agency receives explanations and assurances from the bidder or offeror reasonably indicating that the bidder or offeror will comply. Ann Riley contends that the SEC's selection of the Bayley proposal was improper because: (1) "Bayley could not. Contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period with four 1-year options to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. File: B-271741.2 Date: August 7, 1996 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Bayley Reporting, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SECHQ1-94-R-0008, issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for court reporting and transcription services. Ann Riley contends that the SEC's selection of the Bayley proposal was improper because: (1) "Bayley could not, would not, and did not intend to comply" with the mandatory Limitations on Subcontracting clause in the RFP; (2) the agency unreasonably evaluated the Bayley proposal under certain evaluation subfactors related to the subcontracting limitation; (3) the agency unreasonably identified five weaknesses in Ann Riley's technical proposal; and (4) the agency applied different evaluation standards in its review of the Ann Riley and Bayley proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, set aside for small business, contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period with four 1-year options to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Section M.3 of the RFP advised offerors that technical expertise would be weighted at 60 percent and price would be weighted at 40 percent. The RFP identified two technical evaluation factors--management plan and evidence of the ability of the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors to fulfill contract requirements. Within these two factors were several subfactors, set forth in abbreviated form below: Management Plan (i) plan to manage widely fluctuating workloads (ii) security plan (iii) plan to monitor subcontractor performance Evidence of Ability to Fulfill Contract Requirements (i) ability to manage widely fluctuating workloads (ii) ability to accurately record proceedings (iii) experience of key individuals (iv) ability to record via steno mask or stenotype The RFP also included the "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.219.14, required for all solicitations reserved for exclusive small business participation, pursuant to the requirements of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(o)(1) (1994). The clause provides that: "[b]y submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for-- "(1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern." This requirement exists to prevent small business concerns from subcontracting to large businesses the bulk of a contract reserved for small business participation. CSR, Inc., B-260955, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 59; Diversified Computer Consultants, B-230313; B-230313.2, July 5, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 5. As discussed in greater detail below, after submission of initial offers, discussions, submission of two best and final offers (BAFO), and a preaward survey, the SEC concluded that the Bayley proposal represented the best value to the government. Although the Bayley proposal received a lower technical score than Ann Riley's proposal--i.e., 48.6 points versus 52 (out of 60 possible points)--Bayley's lower price resulted in more points for Bayley under the cost factor. Thus, the overall scores were 88.6 for Bayley, and 87.1 for Ann Riley. After notifying Ann Riley of the selection decision on April 17, 1996, the SEC provided a debriefing to the company on April 22. This protest followed. PROCEDURAL ISSUES The SEC sought dismissal of Ann Riley's protest on the basis that the agency's conclusion that Bayley would comply with the Limitations on Subcontracting clause is either an affirmative determination of an offeror's responsibility, or a matter for resolution by the Small Business Administration (SBA), not our Office.