Quality Elevator Company, Inc.

B-271899 Aug 28, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where evaluation documentation shows that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and reflected the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Allegation that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion questions directly led protester into areas of its technical proposal that required amplification. That the proposals were improperly evaluated. Technical factors were stated to be more important than price. Written discussions were conducted with all competitive range offerors. The BAFOs were evaluated as follows: [1] Offeror Technical Score Life Cycle Price Elcon 852.5 $840. View Decision Matter of: Quality Elevator Company, Inc. File: B-271899 Date: August 28, 1996 Allegation that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where evaluation documentation shows that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and reflected the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Allegation that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester is denied where discussion questions directly led protester into areas of its technical proposal that required amplification. Attorneys DECISION Quality Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Elevator Control Service (Elcon), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-SAAA-6-00011, issued by the Department of Commerce. Quality argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the proposals were improperly evaluated. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on November 30, 1995, requested proposals for a fixed- price contract for a base year with 3 option years to provide labor, equipment, tools, and materials to perform inspection, testing, maintenance, and repairs services on elevators in the Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. Technical factors were stated to be more important than price. The RFP contained the following technical evaluation factors and associated points: (1) preventative maintenance plan (150 points); (2) management plan (200 points); (3) organization and control (100 points); (4) level of effort (50 points); (5) continuity of service (150 points); (6) personnel (150 points); and (7) past performance (200 points), for a maximum possible total of 1,000 points. The agency received five proposals and after evaluation of initial proposals, established a competitive range of four proposals, including those of Quality and Elcon. Written discussions were conducted with all competitive range offerors, and all four submitted best and final offers (BAFO) by the March 13, 1996, closing date. The BAFOs were evaluated as follows: [1] Offeror Technical Score Life Cycle Price Elcon 852.5 $840,128.13 Offeror "A" 637.5 $776,130.00 Offeror "B" 630 $803,600.00 Quality 467.5 $645,750.00 The agency concluded that Elcon's proposal represented the best overall value to the government and made award to Elcon on April 19. This protest followed. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Quality raises numerous arguments to the effect that the technical evaluation was improper, and that the resulting source selection therefore was invalid. We have reviewed the record and conclude that these arguments are without merit. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best methods of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 16. In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. MAR Inc., B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 367. Past Performance The RFP requested that each offeror submit a minimum of four references knowledgeable about its past performance, but the RFP did not state any number of references that the agency would contact as part of the evaluation. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) contacted one reference from each offeror's proposal, visited the associated site and interviewed the contract administrator. In evaluating Quality's past performance, the agency received input from the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) for Quality's current contract, who was also on the TEP, concerning Quality's maintenance of the elevators at the Department of Commerce's Herbert C. Hoover Building.