Matter of:Ouachita Mowing, Inc.

Matter of:Ouachita Mowing, Inc. BNUMBER: B-276075; B-276075.2 DATE: May 8, 1997 TITLE: Matter of:Ouachita Mowing, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Ouachita Mowing, Inc. File: B-276075; B-276075.2 Date:May 8, 1997 Lynda Troutman O'Sullivan, Esq., Kenneth S. Kramer, Esq., James M. Weitzel, Jr., Esq., and Anne B. Perry, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and Michael A. Lewis, Esq., Alan M. Grayson & Associates, for R&D Maintenance, Inc., an intervenor. Larry E. Beall, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly determined that protester proposed too few hours to perform contract satisfactorily is denied where protester merely asserts that its approach would permit it to perform with the number of hours it proposed, and does not explain what that approach is, or how it would enable the protester to complete all required tasks satisfactorily with the hours proposed. 2. Agency held meaningful discussions with protester regarding low proposed man- hours where agency pointed out during discussions its concern that protester's man- year was based on 1,992 hours rather than the standard 2,080 hours; this was sufficient to indicate agency's general concern that proposed hours were too low, and when protester reduced its proposed hours further in its best and final offer, agency was not required to reopen discussions and address the problem again. 3. Agency properly awarded contract to higher cost offeror with technically superior proposal, where it reasonably determined that low cost protester might not be able to perform satisfactorily with the number of man-hours it proposed. DECISION Ouachita Mowing, Inc. protests the award of a contract to R&D Maintenance Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW01-96-R-0065, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for the operation and maintenance of recreational facilities at Lake Sidney Lanier in Buford, Georgia. We deny the protest. The RFP, which contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, provided that proposals would be evaluated against technical, management and cost criteria, and that the award decision would be based on the best value to the government. The Corps received and evaluated initial offers, held discussions with R&D and Ouachita, the two offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range, received and evaluated best and final offers (BAFO), and awarded the contract to R&D after determining that R&D's higher-priced, but technically superior proposal offered the best value to the government. Ouachita protests that the Corps improperly evaluated its proposal, failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm, and performed an unreasonable cost/technical tradeoff. PROPOSED MAN-HOURS The solicitation listed a number of tasks that contractors would be required to perform, including, for example, road repair, maintenance of picnic and camp areas, lawn care, and maintenance and repair of showers and electrical hookups, road signs, and navigation buoys. Offerors were required to provide the personnel to perform all services. The government estimated that it would require 109,734 man- hours to perform the contract satisfactorily. In its BAFO R&D proposed to perform with 105,348 man-hours. Ouachita initially proposed to perform with 102,348 hours, but in its BAFO reduced that number to 97,937. The technical evaluation team (TET) was concerned that Ouachita would be unable to perform the contract with the reduced staffing. The source selection official (SSO) balanced this concern against his finding that R&D's proposal demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirements, and was superior to Ouachita's under the technical and management factors, and concluded that R&D's proposal represented the best value despite its $800,000 higher cost ($9,136,417 versus $8,320,365). Ouachita maintains that the agency's determination that its proposed man-hours were inadequate is unreasonable because it is based solely on a comparison with the government estimate, with no consideration given to whether the proposed hours were adequate in light of Ouachita's proposed approach. The Corps's conclusion regarding the adequacy of Ouachita's proposed hours was reasonable. While neither the TET's award recommendation nor the SSO's decision document details the analysis of Ouachita's proposed hours in the context of its approach, this is not a situation where the agency simply decided that any proposal offering fewer hours than the government estimate was unacceptable. See, e.g., The Jonathan Corp.; Metro Mach. Corp., B-251698.3; B-251698.4, May 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para.