Suddath Van Lines, Inc.; The Pasha Group, B-274285.2; B-

Suddath Van Lines, Inc.; The Pasha Group, B-274285.2; B- BNUMBER: B-274285.2; B-274285.3 DATE: May 19, 1997 TITLE: Suddath Van Lines, Inc.; The Pasha Group, B-274285.2; B- 274285.3, May 19, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Suddath Van Lines, Inc.; The Pasha Group File: B-274285.2; B-274285.3 Date:May 19, 1997 Alan F. Wohlstetter, Esq., and Stanley I. Goldman, Esq., Denning & Wohlstetter, for the protesters. G. Jerry Shaw, Esq., and Susan E. Shaw, Esq., Shaw, Bransford & O'Rourke, for PHH Relocation, an intervenor. Edward L. Williamson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably selected the awardee's technically superior, higher-priced proposal for award where it was reasonably determined that the proposal's technical advantages justified the payment of a price premium and the stated evaluation methodology provided that the technical evaluation factors were significantly more important than price in selecting the proposal most advantageous to the government. DECISION Suddath Van Lines, Inc. and The Pasha Group protest the award of a contract to PHH Relocation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-96-R-0091, issued by the Defense Supply Service-Washington, Department of the Army, for the Army's transportation services "pilot" program for the acquisition of transportation and relocation management services for domestic and international personal household goods shipments from Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. The protesters basically challenge the agency's evaluation of their proposals and the award to PHH, a higher technically rated, higher-priced offeror. We deny the protests. The Army's transportation and relocation management pilot program will test whether commercial business practices can be successfully applied during the military relocation process. The objectives of the pilot program are to improve the quality of life for Army personnel and their families during the relocation process and to provide a single transportation and relocation management point of contact to the military member and his/her family who have received permanent change of station orders. The RFP was issued on June 14, 1996, on an unrestricted basis for commercial transportation and relocation management services under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12[1] and contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements-type contract for the base year and two 1-year option periods. Under the RFP, the contractor is required to furnish all services necessary to accomplish the management and movement of outbound (domestic and international) household goods, mobile homes, and boats. The contractor will be compensated for providing transportation management services. In providing standard commercial relocation management services, e.g., homefinding assistance and other referral relocation services, the contractor will receive no compensation from either the Army or the military member. The member, however, will be responsible for paying for services resulting from the contractor's referral. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, technical evaluation factors and price considered. The RFP contained an evaluation scheme in which the relative importance of the five technical evaluation factors (worth a total of 100 points) and their respective subfactors was listed as follows: Factor 1--Operations (total 30 points) A. Overall plan for providing the specific tasks listed in the statement of work (8) B. Plan for accommodating fluctuating workload and short notice response (5) C. Implementation and transition plan (2) D. Ancillary relocation services (10) E. Customer support; intransit visibility; automation capability (5) Factor 2--Quality and service (total 30 points) A. Plan for measuring customer satisfaction (10) B. Quality control program for carrier performance and selection (10) C. Evidence of claims experience in 1995 (10) Factor 3--Experience and past performance (total 20 points) A. Experience with Federal government clients and the JFTR/JTR (Joint Federal Travel Regulation--Army military entitlements/Joint Travel Regulation--Army civilian entitlements) (5) B. National and international transportation management services experience (5) C.