TESCO

B-271756 Jun 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester was asked to provide information regarding this experience and past performance during discussions. The award decision was to be made on a best value basis. There were two technical criteria. Were determined to be in the competitive range after initial evaluation. Written and oral discussions were held and best and final offers (BAFO) requested. Comprised of 45.5 personnel points and 46 past performance points. [2] STTAR was determined to have demonstrated a "thorough understanding" of the requirements and "extensive experience" with T-AFS. TESCO was determined to have a weakness in "[not] demonstrat[ing] training experience onboard T-AFS and T-AE ships. STTAR's total evaluated price was $881. View Decision Matter of: TESCO File: B-271756 Date: June 24, 1996 Agency properly considered protester's limited experience and past performance with instructional training on vessels covered by the solicitation where the stated technical evaluation factors reasonably encompassed such matters, and protester was asked to provide information regarding this experience and past performance during discussions. Attorneys DECISION TESCO protests the award of a contract to STTAR Corps, Inc. (a/k/a Systems Technical Training and Research Corps, Inc.) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62383-96-R-2000, issued by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), Department of the Navy to provide onboard training courses for equipment and systems on three classes of Navy ships--T-AFS, T-AO, and T-AE. [1] The protester argues that the Navy improperly downgraded its technical proposal using undisclosed evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The award decision was to be made on a best value basis, with price and technical factors receiving equal weight. There were two technical criteria, of equal weight--(1) personnel/qualifications and experience and (2) past performance. The Navy received three offers, two of which--those from TESCO and STTAR--were determined to be in the competitive range after initial evaluation. Written and oral discussions were held and best and final offers (BAFO) requested. STTAR's BAFO received an excellent composite technical score of 91.5 points, comprised of 45.5 personnel points and 46 past performance points. [2] STTAR was determined to have demonstrated a "thorough understanding" of the requirements and "extensive experience" with T-AFS, T-AO, and T-AE ship training, which led to a finding of no performance risk. In contrast, TESCO's proposal received a satisfactory technical composite score of 77 points, comprised of 39 personnel points and 38 past performance points. TESCO was determined to have a weakness in "[not] demonstrat[ing] training experience onboard T-AFS and T-AE ships," which resulted in a moderate performance risk rating. STTAR's total evaluated price was $881,421, after being increased by a 10-percent small disadvantaged business concern preference factor, and TESCO's $788,968. In its best value analysis, the Navy weighed TESCO's lower price against STTAR's extensive training experience and history of performance with all three classes of ships under the solicitation (versus TESCO's limited training experience and past performance with only one of the relevant classes of ships); STTAR's satisfactory performance on the current contract for similar services; and STTAR's "no performance risk" rating, compared to TESCO's moderate risk rating. The agency determined that STTAR's technical advantages offset TESCO's lower price, noting STTAR's $9,633 price per point compared to TESCO's price per point of $10,246. The Navy concluded that STTAR's proposal offered the best value to the government and made award to the firm. TESCO maintains that since the RFP did not expressly provide that training experience and past performance on the three classes of ships were required or would be evaluated, it was improper for the agency to downgrade its proposal, and to rate STTAR's proposal technically superior, based on TESCO's relative weakness in this area. Where, as here, detailed technical proposals are sought and technical evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, offerors are on notice that qualitative distinctions among the technical proposals will be made under the various evaluation factors. Fidelity Technologies Corp., B-258944, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 112; AWD Technologies, Inc., B-250081.2; B-250081.3, Feb. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 83. In making such distinctions, moreover, an agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the stated evaluation criteria. Id. The firms' training experience and past performance on the three ships under the RFP clearly were encompassed by the evaluation factors.