Cobra Technologies, Inc.

Cobra Technologies, Inc. BNUMBER: B-272041; B-272041.2 DATE: August 20, 1996 TITLE: Cobra Technologies, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Cobra Technologies, Inc. File: B-272041; B-272041.2 Date:August 20, 1996 Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and Neil H. Ruttenberg, Esq., Pompan, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester. Ronald B. Vogt, Esq., and Stuart Young, Esq., DynCorp, and Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for DynCorp, an intervenor. Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range where the agency reasonably concluded that there were a multitude of significant deficiencies in the proposal which made it technically unacceptable as submitted and major revisions would have been required to make it acceptable. DECISION Cobra Technologies, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and the subsequent award of a contract to DynCorp under request for proposals (RFP) No. 223-96-9616, issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for operational maintenance and support services at federal buildings in Washington, D.C. Cobra primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The successful offeror will provide operational and maintenance support services at a federal building containing laboratory and office space. This building is unique in that it has a one-pass heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; glass plumbing; and various independent air conditioning, compressed air, vacuum, and a variety of other laboratory delivery systems. Toxicology, pharmacology, microbiology, and nutritional studies that have a direct impact on the food, drug, and cosmetic chain in the country are performed on a daily basis in this building. The contractor will also perform construction and utility work at another nearby federal building. Under the RFP, technical proposals were to be of primary consideration in the evaluation, but price could become primary if the offerors' technical competence were considered approximately the same. Offerors were required to meet three minimum mandatory requirements: 1. Experience in the operation and maintenance of support equipment that sustains acceptable temperature and humidity levels in a laboratory research facility; 2. Experience in operating and maintaining a "one-pass" (100% outside air) air distribution system, and the need to maintain positive/negative balance relationships in a laboratory research environment; and 3. Experience in operating and maintaining a research facility through the use of automated data processing management systems. Proposals meeting these requirements would be evaluated under four technical merit factors and their subfactors: ability to operate and maintain a research facility (30 percent); corporate experience and qualifications (25 percent); past performance (25 percent); and key personnel experience (20 percent). Three firms submitted timely offers, which were subject to a preliminary evaluation by each member of the agency's Project Advisory Group (PAG). The PAG subsequently convened to discuss and finalize the technical evaluation results.[1] The record reflects that all three offerors satisfied the minimum mandatory requirements and received final technical evaluation scores. DynCorp's proposal received a rating of 86.25, and Cobra's proposal received a rating of 61.[2] In its memorandum to the contracting officer, the PAG listed each proposal's strengths and weaknesses and stated that the proposals of Cobra and the third offeror were so inferior and deficient in relation to the evaluation criteria that they would have to be rewritten to be considered technically acceptable. After reviewing the individual evaluation rating forms, the score summary, and the PAG's narrative, the contract specialist recommended the exclusion of both proposals from the competitive range, and the contracting officer concurred. DynCorp was awarded the contract, and Cobra filed this protest. In reviewing competitive range determinations, our Office will not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation is reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Mobility Sys. and Equip. Co., B-261072, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 66. A protester's disagreement with the agency's technical judgment does not show that such judgment was unreasonable. Id.; Mictronics, Inc., B-228404, Feb. 23, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 185.