[Letter], B-277029.3, February 18, 1998

B-277029.3 Feb 18, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range was where agency reasonably Concluded that proposal contained informational deficienices so prevasive that it did not demonstrate protester's understanding of solicitation requirements and thus had no reasonable change of being selected for award. Award was to be based on a best value evaluation. The RFP specifically provided that "[a] detailed work plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the [SOW] is to be accomplished" and that "[t]he technical proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken.". Sixty-five proposals were received. 21 of which ultimately were included in the revised competitive range. View Decision Matter of: McAllister & Associates, Inc. File: B-277029.3 Date: February 18, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McAllister & Associates, Inc. protests the Department of Education's (DOE) elimination of its proposal from the competitive range, and the award of multiple contracts to other offerors, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 96-011, for debt collection services. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of one or more contracts for collection and administrative resolution activities on debts resulting from nonpayment of student loans. Award was to be based on a best value evaluation, with technical merit and past performance combined significantly more important than cost or price. Under the technical factor, the RFP included the following subfactors (with possible ratings out of 450 available points): (1) executive summary (25 points); (2) strategic collections approach (75 points); (3) administrative resolutions (30 points); (4) litigation/administrative wage garnishment (AWG) preparation (45 points); (5) quality control (QC) plan (75 points); (6) training plan (40 points); (7) computer system resources (60 points); and (8) project personnel experience (100 points). Under the price factor, the RFP requested commissions/fees for certain work categories and provided target maximum rates above which a proposal could be considered unacceptable for award. The RFP specifically provided that "[a] detailed work plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the [SOW] is to be accomplished" and that "[t]he technical proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken." Sixty-five proposals were received, 21 of which ultimately were included in the revised competitive range. McAllister's proposal, which was rated deficient in all technical areas, received a final composite technical score (the average of the scores from the five evaluators) of 131.6, or 29.2 percent of the 450 possible points, /1/ and was excluded from the competitive range. /2/ In its rejection letter to the protester, the agency stated that its proposal "d[id] not provide sufficient information to demonstrate [the] ability to fulfill the general requirements of the RFP," and specifically failed to (1) "demonstrate that [its] system can handle the volume of accounts [DOE] expects to transfer within a reasonable time frame," (2) "demonstrate an understanding of the procedures [for] identifying and preparing accounts for litigation and AWG," (3) "discuss [QC] measures," (4) "include [DOE] specific training," and (5) "contain an adequate staffing plan." The agency concluded that these informational deficiencies were so severe that the proposal did not demonstrate an understanding of DOE's requirements and would require "extensive and exhaustive discussions to correct its information deficiencies." The agency proceeded with awards to 18 other offerors. McAllister maintains that the information contained in its proposal was sufficiently detailed to show compliance with the RFP requirements and to warrant retaining it in the competitive range. The protester asserts that any deficiencies were of a type that could have been corrected during discussions. An offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal for the agency to evaluate, Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-255815, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 241 at 5, and agencies may exclude proposals with significant informational deficiencies from further consideration. HITCO, 68 Comp.Gen. 10, 12 (1988), 88-2 CPD Para. 337 at 3. This is true whether the deficiencies are attributable to either omitted or merely inadequate information addressing fundamental factors. Id.