Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, B-

B-276122 May 13, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The RFP was issued on August 21. Were to be considered for award. Which was to be based on price and performance risk. The technical factors were evaluated with regard to the offeror's compliance with. Offerors were cautioned to submit sufficient information to enable the technical evaluators to fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all the requirements. One of the technical areas for evaluation was "PLANNING. " for which offerors were required to submit a manning and staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the tasks in the RFP's PWS. The Air Force apparently determined that the proposal was "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. The contracting officer informed A Plus that its "[t]echnical proposal was found to be deficient in the following areas. View Decision Matter of: Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited File: B-276122 Date: May 13, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Navales Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a A Plus Services Unlimited, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Air Force, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41650-96-R-0008 for the maintenance and repair of military family housing at Kelly Air Force Base. A Plus contends that the Air Force failed to conduct meaningful discussions, as required, prior to rejecting its proposal as technical unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on August 21, 1996, as a section 8(a) set-aside. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with certain materials, parts, and supplies to be reimbursed at cost by the government, for a base period of 1 year with 3 option years. The evaluation scheme in the RFP provided for a best value award; however, only proposals determined technically acceptable with regard to certain listed technical factors, either initially or as a result of discussions, were to be considered for award, which was to be based on price and performance risk. The technical factors were evaluated with regard to the offeror's compliance with, understanding of, and soundness of approach in meeting the requirements stated in the performance work statement (PWS) and the solicitation. Offerors were cautioned to submit sufficient information to enable the technical evaluators to fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all the requirements. One of the technical areas for evaluation was "PLANNING," for which offerors were required to submit a manning and staffing plan that demonstrated a clear understanding of the tasks in the RFP's PWS. The Air Force received [DELETED] proposals, including A Plus's, by the November 18 due date. In the "Capacity to Meet the Requirements" section of its proposal. A Plus presented its staffing manning plan, which provided for a total of [DELETED] FTEs (Full-Time Equivalent--2,080 hours per year) positions for this contract. In its manning chart, A Plus noted that the stated FTEs did not constitute the actual number of personnel to be deployed. A Plus also included an organizational chart in its proposal which provided a synopsis of the responsibilities of corporate officials and employee classifications by position and title. The agency's technical evaluator rated A Plus's proposal as unacceptable because, among other things, A Plus "provided a confusing staffing and manning plan with inadequate FTEs and provided no assurance or indication their plan could meet the requirements" of the PWS. Nonetheless, the Air Force apparently determined that the proposal was "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable," and in a letter dated December 20, 1996, the contracting officer informed A Plus that its "[t]echnical proposal was found to be deficient in the following areas, and that additional information is needed to complete our review." "(a) Your offer failed to address an adequate manning and staffing plan, that demonstrated a clear understanding of the PWS, inasmuch as: "(1) Manning Chart - Indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees. Organization chart indicates [DELETED] Full Time Employees. Need to verify which is the correct number to adequately meet the requirement of the PWS. . . . . . "(3) Staffing Manning Plan - Incomplete, need to verify sufficient number of people." The letter offered A Plus an opportunity to correct these and other listed deficiencies, and stated that no further discussions were anticipated. A Plus submitted a written response to the contracting officer's discussion letter on December 30. With regard to item (a)(1), A Plus explained the manning chart was based on FTEs to be utilized for this contract, which it increased to [DELETED], but that the manning chart did not indicate the actual number of personnel to be deployed.