Geo-Centers, Inc., B-276033, May 5, 1997

B-276033 May 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the record shows that: (1) the protester sought a debriefing within 10 days of contract award. (2) the debriefing was delayed because of the unavailability of agency technical personnel. (3) the information which forms the basis for protest was withheld from the protester at the debriefing. (4) the information was later provided to the protester in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed immediately after the debriefing. Contention that agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals by awarding both proposals the maximum number of available points is denied because the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. View Decision Matter of: Geo-Centers, Inc. File: B-276033 Date: May 5, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Geo-Centers, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dynamac Corporation, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD05-95-R-0794, issued by the Department of the Army for scientific and technical support services related to the Health Effects Research Program of the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Geo-Centers argues that the agency improperly awarded maximum technical scores to each offeror's proposal and performed an unreasonable cost realism evaluation. We sustain the protest. The RFP anticipated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order-type contract for a base year and 2 option years to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government. Section M of the RFP set forth five evaluation factors: technical merit, management merit, performance risk, cost, and subcontracting plan. The RFP advised that the technical and management factors would be combined and numerically scored (on a 1,000-point scale); the performance risk and cost factors would be evaluated on a narrative basis; and the subcontracting plan would be evaluated on a go/no-go basis. Potential offerors were also advised that the technical/management area would be significantly more important than cost, which would be slightly more important than performance risk. In addition, the RFP explained that if the proposals were relatively equal in the technical/management area, cost would assume greater importance. Finally, the RFP identified the required labor categories--i.e., chemist, biologist, statistician, etc.--and the estimated hours for each category. The RFP contained three sample tasks to which offerors were to submit a technical response and sample task cost proposals. (The sample task cost proposals were in addition to the main cost proposal required by the RFP.) The RFP stated that the sample task cost proposals would be evaluated for price reasonableness (section L at 7), and for cost realism (section M at 2). The RFP set forth different definitions for price reasonableness and cost realism. [1] The Army received two proposals--one from Dynamac, one from Geo-Centers, the incumbent contractor providing many of the services here. The Army found both proposals acceptable, [2] and conducted discussions with both offerors. After the conclusion of negotiations, both offerors submitted revised proposals that were evaluated prior to the request for best and final offers (BAFO). Upon receipt of BAFOs, proposals were evaluated for a third time. The results of the technical evaluations are set forth below: INITIAL PROPOSAL POST-DISCUSSIONS BAFO OFFEROR SCORE SCORE SCORE Geo-Centers 930 998 1,000 Dynamac 680 775 1,000 After concluding that the BAFOs were technically equal, the Army made its selection decision on the basis of cost--there being no significant discriminator under the performance risk or subcontracting plan evaluation factors. Since the RFP specified the applicable labor categories and labor hours under each category, and since the contract was to involve task orders, the review of the overall cost proposals focused on the direct and indirect rates applied. The proposed costs offered initially, and at BAFO, are set forth below: Initial BAFO Costs Costs Geo-Centers [deleted] [deleted] Dynamac [deleted] $3.3 mil. Using proposed costs, together with an assessment from the pricing review team that the proposed costs were reasonable, the Army awarded the contract to Dynamac on October 30, 1996. Geo-Centers filed its protest with our Office on January 24, 1997. The decision below sustains Geo-Centers's complaint that the agency unreasonably evaluated its sample task cost proposals--one of three challenges to the Army's cost evaluation. Before reaching this issue, however, the decision considers and denies the other cost realism challenges, as well as Geo-Centers's arguments that the evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable.