Dynalantic Corporation

B-274944.2 Feb 25, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is not reasonable where: (1) the deficiencies cited are minor in relation to the scope of work and the revisions necessary to correct them. (2) excluded offeror's price is [deleted] million lower than sole remaining offeror's. Dynalantic contends that it was improperly excluded from the competitive range without discussions based on an unreasonable technical evaluation. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on February 7. Which were listed in the RFP in descending order of importance: Technical Approach. Offerors were to construct a facility to house the ship handling simulator complex. Offerors were directed to complete and submit the fixed-price schedule set forth at section B. Cost or price was approximately equal in importance to the combination of all other evaluation factors. View Decision Matter of: Dynalantic Corporation File: B-274944.2 Date: February 25, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dynalantic Corporation protests the award of a contract to Marine Safety International (MSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-96-R-0749, issued by the Department of the Navy for ship handling simulation services. Dynalantic contends that it was improperly excluded from the competitive range without discussions based on an unreasonable technical evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on February 7, 1996 and contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity fixed-price contract for a base year and 9 option years to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government. The solicitation required offerors to submit technical proposals organized according to the following technical evaluation factors, which were listed in the RFP in descending order of importance: Technical Approach; Personnel; and Management Plan. [1] According to the RFP's statement of work (SOW), offerors were to construct a facility to house the ship handling simulator complex; install and configure the simulator equipment and training stations; provide all personnel and technical services necessary to run the ship handling simulator complex for a period of up to 10 years; and remove the complex at the conclusion of contract performance. For their price proposals, offerors were directed to complete and submit the fixed-price schedule set forth at section B, which required unit prices for estimated quantities of 3,360, 4,300, and 5,000 hours per contract year. In this regard, the pricing schedule required offerors to propose one comprehensive hourly rate for performing any hour of required service. Cost or price was approximately equal in importance to the combination of all other evaluation factors. Several amendments were issued, and a pre-proposal conference and site visit were conducted on February 23, 1996. By the May 23 closing date, two offers were received--from Dynalantic and MSI. On June 11, a three-member technical evaluation panel (TEP) completed its evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals and forwarded a consensus evaluation to the contract specialist--who was the cognizant contracting official for this procurement--which rated Dynalantic's and MSI's proposals as follows: Factor Dynalantic MSI Technical Approach Unacceptable Outstanding Personnel Better Outstanding Management Plan Unacceptable Outstanding Overall Rating Unacceptable Outstanding The contract specialist briefly reviewed Dynalantic's submitted pricing schedule and determined that Dynalantic's proposed pricing exceeded the Navy's available funding; Dynalantic had proposed a total price of approximately [deleted] million. Based on the TEP's "unacceptable" rating, the contract specialist excluded Dynalantic's proposal from the competitive range, leaving MSI as the sole competitor. MSI's proposed pricing strategy also exceeded the Navy's available funding; MSI had proposed a total price of approximately [deleted] million. Consequently, the contract specialist conducted several rounds of discussions with MSI--which ultimately resulted in the agency's reducing the minimum hours required by the solicitation. On September 19, the Navy awarded the contract to MSI for approximately [deleted] million. On October 1, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.1004, the Navy provided a debriefing to Dynalantic. On October 7, Dynalantic filed this protest; contract performance has been continued by the Navy under a "best interest" justification. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) (1994). PARTIES' POSITIONS The RFP set forth a five-tier adjectival scoring system which was to be used to evaluate offerors' technical proposals: Outstanding, Better, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable.