Engineering and Computation, Inc.

B-275180.2 Jan 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Even if the agency's reevaluation of the protester's proposal was flawed and the protester should have been evaluated as the low cost offeror. The protester was not prejudiced since under the solicitation's evaluation methodology where technical evaluation factors were weighted equal to cost. The agency could reasonably make a cost/technical tradeoff and award the contract to the incumbent contractor which was rated "excellent" for the relevant corporate experience and past performance evaluation factor. We sustained ECI's protest because we could not determine the reasonableness of the agency's selection decision since it was based on unsupported evaluation conclusions and the agency failed to rebut ECI's protest assertions that its proposal was misevaluated. View Decision Matter of: Engineering and Computation, Inc. File: B-275180.2 Date: January 29, 1997 Even if the agency's reevaluation of the protester's proposal was flawed and the protester should have been evaluated as the low cost offeror, the protester was not prejudiced since under the solicitation's evaluation methodology where technical evaluation factors were weighted equal to cost, the agency could reasonably make a cost/technical tradeoff and award the contract to the incumbent contractor which was rated "excellent" for the relevant corporate experience and past performance evaluation factor, as opposed to the protester, a new corporate entity rated "neutral" for this evaluation factor because it had no prior corporate experience and past performance and the solicitation did not provide for consideration of the experience of the firm's key personnel in evaluating corporate experience and past performance. Attorneys DECISION Engineering and Computation, Inc. (ECI) protests the reevaluation of its proposal and the selection of IIT Research Institute (IITRI) for the award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 8-H-5-EH-18305, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the operation and maintenance of metallurgy research facilities at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. In Engineering and Computation, Inc., B-261658, Oct. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 176, we sustained ECI's protest because we could not determine the reasonableness of the agency's selection decision since it was based on unsupported evaluation conclusions and the agency failed to rebut ECI's protest assertions that its proposal was misevaluated. We recommended that the agency reevaluate all proposals, document its reevaluation, and make a new selection decision. [1] ECI maintains that the agency did not properly reevaluate its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period and four option periods to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. The RFP contained the following essentially equal evaluation factors: (1) mission suitability; (2) cost; (3) relevant experience and past performance; and (4) other considerations (e.g., phase-in; corporate policies, procedures, and practices; labor relations; corporate resources; and small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plans). The mission suitability evaluation factor, the only factor that was point-scored, consisted of the following subfactors: (1) understanding the requirement (350 points); (2) management approach (325 points); and (3) staffing plan (325 points). Based on points received, adjectival ratings were assigned (e.g., "excellent"--91 to 100 percent of points received and "very good"--71 to 90 percent of points received). Adjectival ratings were also assigned to the other noncost evaluation factors. An offeror's proposed cost was adjusted to reflect the "probable cost of doing business" with the firm. The agency reevaluated the best and final offers of the three competitive range offerors, including ECI, a newly formed, small disadvantaged business concern, and IITRI, the incumbent contractor. The reevaluation results, which were supported by narratives of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks in each offeror's proposal, were as follows: Firm A ECI IITRI Mission Suitability 845 points; 860 points; 950 points; very good very good excellent Relevant Experience & Excellent Neutral Excellent Past Performance Other Considerations Excellent Very Good Excellent Proposed Cost; $7,782,311; $8,121,978; $7,641,083; Most Probable Cost $9,395,378 $9,173,068 $9,171,509 The source selection official (SSO) [2] reviewed the reevaluation results and noted that the relative order of mission suitability scores did not change, although the scores of Firm A and ECI increased slightly (i.e., Firm A by 5 points and ECI by 10 points). While IITRI's score remained the same, the SSO determined that IITRI still had an advantage in each of the mission suitability subfactors.