Harry A. Stroh Associates, Inc.

B-274335 Dec 04, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Provided the contracting officer reasonably determines that discussions are unnecessary. Were as follows: (1) technical management/organization. The RFP also stated that "[a]ll efforts will be made to evaluate the proposals without conducting discussions and requesting [b]est and [f]inal offers." [2] The agency received 13 proposals by June 5. The technical proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) with the following results: [3] Offeror Technical Price Ace [Deleted] $21.6 million Offeror A [Deleted] [Deleted] Stroh [Deleted] [Delteted] Offeror B [Deleted] [Deleted] [4] Based on the evaluation results. The board felt that deficiencies noted were not correctable within the time frame for contract award. View Decision Matter of: Harry A. Stroh Associates, Inc. File: B-274335 Date: December 4, 1996 * Redacted Decision Where a request for proposals sets forth the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-16, Alternate II (FAC 90-31), advising offerors of the agency's intent to award without conducting discussions, contracting agency may properly do so, provided the contracting officer reasonably determines that discussions are unnecessary. Contracting agency reasonably determined to award to the offeror which submitted the technically superior proposal at a fair and reasonable price based on initial proposals, despite protester's arguments that a possibility existed that its inferior technical proposal could eventually become, through discussions, the best value proposal. Attorneys DECISION Harry A. Stroh Associates, Inc. (Stroh) protests the award of a fixed-price contract, on the basis of initial proposals, to Ace Maintenance & Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT11-96-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army for complete housekeeping services at several hospitals and clinics. Stroh contends that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct discussions by making award on the basis of initial proposals. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 27, 1996, provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government considering the evaluation factors set forth in Section M of the RFP. The RFP contemplated a base year performance period with four 1-year option periods. The technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance, were as follows: (1) technical management/organization; (2) staffing; (3) past performance/experience; (4) business management; and (5) technical and management transition. The RFP stated that price would not be assigned a numerical score but would be considered of equal importance to the combined technical evaluation factors. The RFP also stated that "[a]ll efforts will be made to evaluate the proposals without conducting discussions and requesting [b]est and [f]inal offers." [2] The agency received 13 proposals by June 5, 1996, the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. The technical proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) with the following results: [3] Offeror Technical Price Ace [Deleted] $21.6 million Offeror A [Deleted] [Deleted] Stroh [Deleted] [Delteted] Offeror B [Deleted] [Deleted] [4] Based on the evaluation results, the SSEB made the following recommendation to the source selection authority (SSA): "[A] thorough evaluation of all the proposals revealed that Ace Maintenance Services, Inc. had a technically superior proposal and should be awarded the contract without discussions. "[T]he board evaluated all other proposals as not acceptable for inclusion in the competitive range. The board felt that deficiencies noted were not correctable within the time frame for contract award. Therefore, it was unanimously agreed upon by the Board to not establish a competitive range but to rather make contract award to the offeror who demonstrated the most complete understanding of the Government scope of work and [Performance Work Statement (PWS)] requirements." The SSA reviewed the evaluation results. With respect to Ace, she found, among other things, that the firm's procedures manual and technical proposal were very well organized, structured following the PWS and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, and clearly demonstrated a thorough understanding of the PWS and the concept of total disinfection cleaning vital in hospital housekeeping. She also determined that Ace's staffing matrix was clear and concise, and "very close" to the IGE annual hours. In contrast, she determined that Stroh's procedures manual conflicted with the PWS and that the firm's Quality Control Program met minimum needs but did not demonstrate a full understanding of the government's requirements.