Tecom, Inc., B-275518.2, May 21, 1997

B-275518.2 May 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fixed-price contract is unobjectionable where it is based on cost and price information submitted by the offerors which reasonably supports the conclusion that proposed prices were reasonable. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied where evaluation record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Improperly awarded the contract to Baker-Serco on the basis of its lower price when the solicitation emphasized that technical factors were more important than price. Technical capabilities necessary to fill the requirements of the contract and whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Tecom, Inc. File: B-275518.2 Date: May 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tecom, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Baker-Serco Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33601-96-R-9009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for vehicle operations and maintenance services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Tecom asserts that the Air Force did not perform a sufficient price realism analysis as required by the RFP, misevaluated the technical proposals, and improperly awarded the contract to Baker-Serco on the basis of its lower price when the solicitation emphasized that technical factors were more important than price. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on July 10, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price service contract with award fee for the operation and maintenance functions of the vehicle fleet for a base contract period with four 1-year options. The services include all personnel, equipment, tools materials, supervision and other items, and services necessary to manage and perform vehicle maintenance, vehicle operations and analysis at Wright-Patterson. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror who demonstrates that the offeror possesses the management, financial, and technical capabilities necessary to fill the requirements of the contract and whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the government. The RFP also stated that the offeror whose proposal had the highest degree of credibility and whose performance could best meet the government's requirements at an affordable cost would be selected for award. The RFP cautioned offerors that acquisition cost would be a substantial factor in the source selection decision. The solicitation listed the following four criteria, each of which was of equal importance: (1) Management Factor 1.1 - Management On Site Factor 1.2 - Corporate Level Support Factor 1.3 - Administrative Support (2) Production Factor 2.1 - Operations Plan Factor 2.2 - Maintenance Plan Factor 2.3 - Supply Management (3) Quality Factor 3.1 - Personnel Factor 3.2 - Quality Procedures (4) Cost/Price The factors within each area were also equal in importance. The RFP also provided that proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk, which would involve an assessment of the risks associated with the offeror's proposed approach to accomplish the requirements. Similarly, proposals were to be evaluated for performance risk, which would involve the assessment of the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated relevant present and past performance. Prices were to be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and realism. The solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of a "comparison with information such as DCAA [Defense Contract Audit Agency], historical, wage determination, current commercial/market, and/or GSA prices." The agency received 10 proposals, including Tecom's (the incumbent contractor) and Baker-Serco's, by the August 21, 1996, closing date. The technical proposals were evaluated for performance and proposal risk [1], as well as under a color/adjectival rating scheme [2], for each of the evaluation factors. Five proposals, including Tecom's and Baker-Serco's were included in the competitive range. One proposal was subsequently withdrawn. Written discussions were conducted after which best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, received, and evaluated.