Jack Faucett Associates, B-277555, September 12, 1997

B-277555 Sep 12, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where solicitation states a best value evaluation plan and that the agency will award from one to three contracts. The agency's decision to award two contracts to the two undisputed superior offerors is unobjectionable. Work will be performed under these contracts through the placement of Task Orders that may be either: firm fixed price (FFP). The use of multiple award contracts will allow FHWA to take continuous advantage [during the placement of task orders] of the competitive forces of the commercial market place which will result in lower prices. This requirement is not a small business set-aside. Faucett's BAFOs were: [1] Offeror Technical Rating Price/Cost [2] (0-100 points) Battelle 87.3 $16. View Decision Matter of: Jack Faucett Associates File: B-277555 Date: September 12, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Jack Faucett Associates protests the failure of the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to make an award to it under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-97-R-00010, for technical and program support services to assist FHWA in developing and evaluating transportation policy issues. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 5, 1997, contemplated award of: one or more (but most likely not more than three) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts from this solicitation. Work will be performed under these contracts through the placement of Task Orders that may be either: firm fixed price (FFP), cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) or cost plus award fee (CPAF). The use of multiple award contracts will allow FHWA to take continuous advantage [during the placement of task orders] of the competitive forces of the commercial market place which will result in lower prices, better quality, and improved contractor performance in satisfying FHWA requirements. This requirement is not a small business set-aside. The RFP also stated a best value evaluation plan with the following three evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical, cost, and business factors (i.e., past performance and subcontracting plan for using disadvantaged and women-owned small business enterprises and minority institutions). The RFP's statement of work listed 9 task areas and 79 sub-tasks. The RFP also stated the competition procedure for placement of task orders among the firms that receive contract awards under the RFP. Four offerors, including Faucett, Battelle Memorial Institute, and KPMG Peat Marwick, submitted proposals in response to the RFP. FHWA evaluated proposals, conducted discussions, and requested best and final offers (BAFO). The BAFO evaluations of Battelle's, KPMG's, and Faucett's BAFOs were: [1] Offeror Technical Rating Price/Cost [2] (0-100 points) Battelle 87.3 $16,612,216 KPMG 80.8 18,491,569 Faucett 64.3 16,844,913 Under past performance, Battelle and KPMG received "excellent" ratings and Faucett received a "good" rating. Under subcontracting, Battelle proposed significantly greater participation by disadvantaged and women-owned small business enterprises and minority institutions than did the other offerors; KPMG proposed slightly greater participation than did Faucett. The Evaluation Panel discussed the relative merits and concerns for each BAFO, and recommended awards to Battelle and KPMG, the two highest-rated offerors. The source selection official (SSO) reviewed the evaluation results [3] and determined that Battelle and KPMG offered significant quantitative and qualitative advantages over Faucett. Moreover, she determined that Faucett's proposed team: [did] not have any capabilities that are not available on the [Battelle] or KPMG teams, nor do they provide a similar magnitude of depth and breadth of coverage. The SSO determined that Faucett's cost advantage over KPMG did not offset KPMG's significantly greater technical advantage over Faucett. She determined that the BAFOs of Battelle and KPMG represented the best value to the government and that two contract awards to these firms would provide sufficient on-going competition for placing task orders. On July 3, FHWA awarded contracts to Battelle and KPMG. After Faucett requested and received a debriefing, it filed this protest. Faucett does not protest the awards to Battelle or KPMG. Rather, Faucett alleges that the agency should have awarded a third contract to Faucett because it was a small business and its BAFO was the third-ranked acceptable proposal under the RFP which contemplated multiple awards. It is well settled that there is no right to a government contract, Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 127 (1940); Pegasus Alarm Assocs., Inc., B-225597.2, May 12, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 499 at 3, although of course, firms do have the right to have their bids or offers considered fairly. Krygoski Constr. Co., 63 Comp.Gen. 367, 371 (1984), 84-1 CPD Para. 523 at 6.