RAMCOR Services Group, Inc., B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-

RAMCOR Services Group, Inc., B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B- BNUMBER: B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-276633.4 DATE: March 23, 1998 TITLE: RAMCOR Services Group, Inc., B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B- 276633.4, March 23, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:RAMCOR Services Group, Inc. File: B-276633.2; B-276633.3; B-276633.4 Date:March 23, 1998 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Michael Cameron, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Past performance and technical evaluations are unobjectionable where they were conducted in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and are supported by the record. 2. Where evaluated deficiencies and weaknesses are relevant to more than one evaluation subfactor, agency's evaluation of those matters under multiple criteria does not constitute improper "double counting." 3. Protest of elimination of protester's proposal from the competitive range based on disagreement with agency's evaluation and allegation of bias on the part of evaluators is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record supports the evaluators' conclusions and provides no evidence of bias. DECISION RAMCOR Services Group, Inc. (RSG) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ-97-03, issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice for base operations and support services. RSG, the incumbent, contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated based on biased and faulty evaluations of RSG's past performance and technical proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide comprehensive base operating support services to the U.S. Border Patrol Satellite Academy in Charleston, South Carolina. These services include student support services such as operation and cleaning of dormitories, operation of the dining facility, and training support services (e.g., provision of range masters, role players for practical exercises, computer laboratory support, and equipment); facility-based services such as janitorial services, waste removal, and facility/grounds maintenance; and security services. The successful contractor will furnish all labor, equipment, transportation, administrative support, training, and supplies necessary to ensure competent and productive service performance. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year options.[1] According to section M of the RFP, proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three major factors, listed in descending order of importance: "past performance," "technical and management capability," and "cost/price." Section M also listed subfactors for "past performance" (quality of service, timeliness of performance, cost control, business practices and customer satisfaction, and key personnel) and for "technical/management capability" (management plan, quality control plan, and personnel resources/staffing approach). Each subfactor also contained a narrative description of relevant sub-elements. "Past performance" was scored using an adjectival rating system: "neutral," "outstanding," "good," "satisfactory," and "marginal." "Technical/management capability" was scored on a similar scale of "outstanding," "good," "average," "marginal," and "unsatisfactory."[2] Section M also provided for the establishment of a competitive range, based on the initial evaluations, to be comprised of the proposals of all offerors with a reasonable chance of receiving contract award. Those eliminated from the competitive range would be "notified that their proposals [were] unacceptable, that negotiations with them [were] not contemplated and any revisions of their proposals [would] not be considered." Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government. [Deleted] proposals, including those of Omni-Cube and RSG, were submitted by the May 30, 1997, closing date. Based upon the initial evaluation of the non-price factors, RSG's past performance was rated "good." Under the technical/ management capability factor, RSG's proposal was rated as "marginal" under the "management plan" subfactor and "unsatisfactory" under the "quality control plan" and "personnel resources/staffing approach" subfactors, with an overall "unsatisfactory" rating for this factor. RSG's evaluated price was the [deleted] lowest of the proposals.