J.A. Jones Management Services, Inc., B-276864, July 24, 1997

B-276864 Jul 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's contracting officer had inadequate basis for the award of a contract where the award decision was based on inaccurate and inadequately documented evaluation team report and recommendation concerning the relative technical merit of competing proposals. The protester contends that the agency's technical evaluation was unreasonable and inaccurate. Was most advantageous to the government. The RFP cautioned offerors to submit their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint in their initial proposals since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions unless the agency subsequently determined that discussions were necessary. The RFP stated as follows: Proposals will be technically reviewed by qualified evaluators to initially determine basic conformance with the RFP. View Decision Matter of: J.A. Jones Management Services, Inc. File: B-276864 Date: July 24, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J.A. Jones Management Services, Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests the award of a contract to Intersteel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA27-97-R-0013, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, Kentucky, for base-wide repair and construction work at Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot. The protester contends that the agency's technical evaluation was unreasonable and inaccurate; that the agency failed to adequately document and justify its source selection decision or to rationally identify the best value offeror during its evaluation; and that the agency otherwise misevaluated proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 20, 1996, contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity contract, with individual fixed-price delivery orders to be issued for specified work, for an 18-month base period and 2 option years. The RFP stated that award would be made to that offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFP cautioned offerors to submit their best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint in their initial proposals since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions unless the agency subsequently determined that discussions were necessary. As amended, the RFP contained the following proposal evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance: [1] (1) management ability (33 points); (2) subcontracting support capability (25 points); (3) related experience (20 points); (4) coefficient; [2] (5) technical staff capability (12 points); and (6) financial ability (8 points). Concerning the evaluation methodology, the RFP stated as follows: Proposals will be technically reviewed by qualified evaluators to initially determine basic conformance with the RFP. Proposals will be given a quality rating based on the evaluation factors. Points will be assigned to any proposal in the proportion to the extent the proposal exceeds minimum evaluation requirements. The RFP also stated that proposals would be independently and objectively evaluated as to merit with "[s]ubjective comparisons [limited] to those areas where it is not feasible to quantify criteria[, but] final determination of contract award will be based on the best composite offer, all factors considered." The RFP stated that evaluation would be inclusive of all options. The minimum contract value was $250,000 for the base and for each of the three options; the RFP also identified a maximum value of $4 million for each of these contract periods. The agency received 11 proposals by March 6, 1997, the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. Under the agency's source selection plan (SSP), the proposals were referred to an evaluation board which made recommendations to the contracting officer, who was the source selection authority (SSA). [3] The evaluation board prepared consensus score sheets containing point scores and cursory narrative annotations. The evaluation board also prepared for the contracting officer a very brief summary of its consensus evaluation (consisting of a total of five or six sentences for each offeror) stating the results of its evaluation. [4] The evaluation's board technical point scores and evaluated prices were as follows: [5] Offeror Technical Score Price (Maximum 98 points) Intersteel [deleted] $601,875 Jones [deleted] [deleted] Offeror A [deleted] [deleted] Offeror B [deleted] [deleted] Offeror C [deleted] [deleted] The evaluation board recommended award to Intersteel. The SSA simply noted subsequently in a memorandum dated April 16, 1997, that the "evaluation resulted in selection of Intersteel, Inc.," and selected that firm for award.