Matter of:Telford Aviation, Inc.

B-275896 Apr 16, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that the evaluation of protester's technical and price proposals was flawed is denied where agency reasonably followed the evaluation criteria in scoring proposals and the protester's argument essentially reflects its disagreement with the evaluators based on a view that its proposal should not have been downgraded merely because it complied with the solicitation's minimum technical requirements. Record provides no basis to object to cost/technical tradeoff based on reasonable technical and price evaluations where protester's allegation is premised on its contrary view of the underlying evaluation. Telford alleges that the evaluation of its proposal was improper and also challenges the cost/technical tradeoff decision resulting in the selection of Doss. View Decision Matter of: Telford Aviation, Inc. File: B-275896 Date: April 16, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Telford Aviation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Doss Aviation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT51-95-R-0034, issued by the Department of the Army for aircraft maintenance and repair services at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Telford alleges that the evaluation of its proposal was improper and also challenges the cost/technical tradeoff decision resulting in the selection of Doss. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government based on price and other factors. The solicitation provided that technical and management factors were more important than price, which was, in turn, more important than past performance. The evaluation factors listed in section M of the RFP, together with the associated maximum scores that could be assigned by the evaluators, as listed in the source selection plan [1], were as follows: Factor/Subfactor Maximum Possible Points Technical 60 Staffing 20 Policies and Procedures 33 Personnel Qualifications 7 Management 30 Aviation Quality Management 10 Aviation Logistics Support 9 General Management 7 Other Management Areas 4 Past Performance Not Numerically Scored Four initial proposals were received. One was immediately rejected as unacceptable and another was withdrawn from the competition. Discussions were held with Doss and Telford and each was invited to submit a best and final offer (BAFO). The final evaluation scores were as follows: EVALUATION CATEGORY DOSS TELFORD Technical Staffing 19.00 5.60 Policies and Procedures 20.10 7.00 Personnel Qualification 7.00 6.25 Total Technical (60 Maximum) 46.10 18.85 Management Aviation Quality Management 8.50 2.50 Aviation Logistics Support 7.20 3.15 General Management 5.60 0.00 Other Management Areas 3.33 0.94 Total Management (30 Maximum) 24.63 6.59 TOTAL OVERALL [2] (90 Maximum) 70.73 25.44 Telford's BAFO price was $4,665,297 for a base year with three 1-year options as compared to Doss's price of $6,205,365. Doss's price was determined to be realistic while Telford's was questioned because the firm proposed to pay experienced technical workers only the minimum wages required by law. The past performance evaluation resulted in Doss being credited for more relevant aircraft experience than Telford. While recognizing the substantial price differential, the contracting officer selected Doss stating that its higher technical/management score in the most important evaluation factor, better past performance, and realistic price represented the best value to the government in view of the agency's willingness to pay a reasonable premium for reliability and technical excellence. The tradeoff analysis was performed despite the agency's assessment that Telford's proposal was technically unacceptable. Following notification of the award and a written debriefing received on December 31, Telford filed this protest on January 6, 1997. PROTEST AND ANALYSIS The protester principally challenges the propriety of the technical/management evaluation, the price realism evaluation, and the cost/technical tradeoff. Technical/Management Evaluation The protester challenges four aspects of the technical/management evaluation, namely those involving minimum manning under the staffing subfactor, property control and nondestructive testing under the policies and procedures subfactor and aviation logistics support under the management factor. Because the evaluation of proposals is an inherently subjective process our Office will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's evaluators. In order for us to disagree with the agency, the record must show that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable; a protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that it was unreasonable. Scientific Management Assocs., Inc., B-238913, July 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para.