Chek F. Tan & Company, B-277163, September 8, 1997

B-277163 Sep 08, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The solicitation's evaluation scheme provided that the mission suitability evaluation factor and an offeror's evaluated cost were most important and that an offeror's relevant experience and past performance was somewhat less important in selecting the most advantageous proposal to the government. The RFP was issued on November 26. Contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the base period and four 1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. The mission suitability evaluation factor was comprised of the following three subfactors and related elements: (1) understanding the requirement (technical understanding. These subfactors and related elements were weighted and scored in accordance with the numerical scheme described in the RFP under which an offeror could receive up to a total of 1. View Decision Matter of: Chek F. Tan & Company File: B-277163 Date: September 8, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chek F. Tan & Company protests the award of a contract to International Management, Development, and Training, Inc. (IMDT) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2-35974(TLS), issued by the Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for financial and accounting services. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the award to a higher technically rated, higher evaluated cost offeror. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on November 26, 1996, and contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the base period and four 1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, mission suitability, cost, and relevant experience and past performance considered. The mission suitability evaluation factor was comprised of the following three subfactors and related elements: (1) understanding the requirement (technical understanding; staffing and training plan, replacement, and backup; and total compensation plan for professional employees), (2) management plan (organizational structure/management approach and phase- in/phase-out plan), and (3) corporate/company business. These subfactors and related elements were weighted and scored in accordance with the numerical scheme described in the RFP under which an offeror could receive up to a total of 1,000 points for the mission suitability evaluation factor. The mission suitability portion of an offeror's proposal also received an overall adjectival rating (excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor). An offeror's proposed cost, including the offeror's total compensation plan for professional employees, was evaluated in terms of the probable or expected cost to the government of the offeror performing the contract. Finally, an offeror's overall corporate experience and past performance was evaluated to determine how well the offeror could be expected to perform the current requirements. Relevant experience and past performance was evaluated by assigning adjectival ratings (same as those set out above). In determining the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, the RFP stated that the mission suitability evaluation factor and an offeror's evaluated cost (which were approximately equal in importance to each other) were most important, and that an offeror's relevant experience and past performance was somewhat less important than either mission suitability or cost. Five firms, including the protester, the incumbent contractor for more than 8 years, and IMDT, submitted initial proposals. The agency included the proposals of the protester and IMDT in the competitive range and subsequently conducted written and oral discussions with these two competitive range offerors. During discussions, the agency identified weaknesses in each offeror's proposal, linking these weaknesses to specific RFP provisions. Following discussions, the protester and IMDT submitted best and final offers. For the mission suitability evaluation factor, out of a possible 1,000 points, the protester's proposal received 501 points and an overall "fair" rating, and IMDT's proposal received 741 points and an overall "very good" rating. These scores were supported by narratives of the major and minor strengths and weaknesses in each offeror's proposal. The protester's evaluated cost was approximately 6 percent less than IMDT's evaluated cost. The protester received a "very good" rating for relevant experience and past performance based on its performance as the incumbent contractor.