Hadley Exhibits, Inc.

B-274346 Nov 05, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for the fabrication and installation of exhibits was reasonably downgraded by the agency where the proposal did not demonstrate that certain proposed equipment met the specification requirements and where certain proposed personnel lacked sufficient relevant experience. Hadley argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. Equipment and Major Tools (10 points) The RFP provided for the award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Stated that "[t]echnical expertise is considerably more important than cost in a ratio of approximately 70/30.". The proposals were evaluated. View Decision Matter of: Hadley Exhibits, Inc. File: B-274346 Date: November 5, 1996 A proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for the fabrication and installation of exhibits was reasonably downgraded by the agency where the proposal did not demonstrate that certain proposed equipment met the specification requirements and where certain proposed personnel lacked sufficient relevant experience. Attorneys DECISION Hadley Exhibits, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Universal Exhibits under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1443-CX-1500-96-001, issued by the Department of the Interior, for the fabrication and installation of exhibits at the Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Keystone, South Dakota. Hadley argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price contract. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors to be evaluated on a 100-point scale: A. Technical Approach (50 points) B. Personnel (20 points) C. Samples of Work (20 points) D. Physical Plant, Equipment and Major Tools (10 points) The RFP provided for the award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government, cost or price and other factors considered, and stated that "[t]echnical expertise is considerably more important than cost in a ratio of approximately 70/30." The agency received five proposals, including Hadley's and Universal's. The proposals were evaluated, and four proposals, including Hadley's and Universal's, were included in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) submitted. Hadley's BAFO received an overall technical score of 84.33 points with a price of $1,198,107, while Universal's BAFO received a score of 87.33 points with a price of $1,292,297. The agency determined that Universal's technically superior, higher-priced proposal represented the best value based on technical and price considerations. In making this determination, the agency identified two particular weaknesses in Hadley's BAFO that rendered it technically inferior to Universal's BAFO: (1) under the technical approach factor, Hadley's BAFO did not sufficiently describe certain proposed equipment to assure its compatibility with other agency equipment and (2) a member of Hadley's conservationist team lacked sufficient relevant experience. Hadley protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical approach and personnel evaluation factors was unreasonable. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency because the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method 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 review 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. An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2; B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 51. The RFP contained detailed specifications for each piece of audio-visual (AV) hardware required, and specified brand-name items which could be furnished to meet these requirements. The RFP provided that should an offeror propose to furnish an "'equal' product," the product must be identified by brand name, if any, and information must be furnished to enable the agency to determine if the proposed "equal" equipment meets the specifications set forth in the RFP.