Engineered Systems, Inc.

B-273027 Nov 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Although some elements of the contract were to be priced on a time-and-materials basis. After each of the proposals was evaluated by a five-member technical evaluation committee. Two were found technically unacceptable. Engineered Systems's proposal was rated green (acceptable) under every factor and subfactor with the exception of the corporate experience factor and the integrated logistics support subfactor. Which were rated yellow (marginal). INTEC's proposal was rated blue (excellent) under every evaluation factor and subfactor. The source selection official concluded that the proposal of INTEC was worth its slightly higher price. View Decision Matter of: Engineered Systems, Inc. File: B-273027 Date: November 15, 1996 Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's technical proposal, and improperly concluded that the awardee's significantly higher-rated, slightly higher-priced proposal offered the best value to the government, is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Attorneys DECISION Engineered Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Independent Technology, Inc. (INTEC) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 52- DGNW-6-00010, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for maintenance and logistics support of the NOAA Weather Radio Transmitter Network. Engineered Systems argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under every evaluation criterion and unreasonably selected INTEC's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND NOAA issued the RFP on October 10, 1995, seeking offers to maintain and support the Weather Radio Transmitter Network, which provides critical weather warnings to the nation. The RFP generally anticipated award of a fixed-price requirements contract, although some elements of the contract were to be priced on a time-and-materials basis. The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated using four evaluation factors--personnel, technical approach, past performance, and corporate experience--and that the personnel and technical approach evaluation factors would be significantly more important than the past performance and corporate experience factors. One of these factors, technical approach, included four subfactors: field maintenance support, integrated logistics support, test procedures plan, and property control plan. The RFP further advised that the agency would select the proposal offering the greatest value to the government, considering both technical expertise and price. Four offerors responded to the RFP. After each of the proposals was evaluated by a five-member technical evaluation committee, two were found technically unacceptable, leaving only the proposals submitted by Engineered Systems and INTEC in the competitive range. After holding discussions with both offerors, and requesting best and final offers (BAFO), the evaluation committee again reviewed the proposals. The record shows that each evaluator assigned a color rating--blue (excellent), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), and red (unacceptable)--for each factor and subfactor in the evaluation scheme. At the conclusion of the evaluation, Engineered Systems's proposal was rated green (acceptable) under every factor and subfactor with the exception of the corporate experience factor and the integrated logistics support subfactor, which were rated yellow (marginal). Thus, Engineered Systems's proposal received an overall rating of green. INTEC's proposal was rated blue (excellent) under every evaluation factor and subfactor, and received an overall rating of blue. [1] Given the evaluation committee's conclusion that the INTEC proposal significantly surpassed the Engineered Systems's proposal under every evaluation factor and subfactor, and given their relative prices of $7.4 million (Engineered Systems) and $7.8 million (INTEC), the source selection official concluded that the proposal of INTEC was worth its slightly higher price. On July 30, the agency awarded the contract to INTEC and this protest followed. DISCUSSION Engineered Systems argues, in essence, that under every evaluation criterion both offers should have been rated acceptable. Thus, the protester argues that the agency should have concluded that the proposals were technically equal and should have declined to pay a premium for INTEC's services. In considering protests against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Atmospheric Research Sys., Inc., B-240187, Oct. 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 338.