ECG, Inc., B-277738, October 20, 1997

B-277738 Oct 20, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. ECG challenges the propriety of the agency's evaluation of ECG's proposal and asserts that DOE failed to determine whether Global's proposed personnel were current employees as required by the solicitation. The successful offerors are to provide advisory support services requiring highly technical. The RFP provided for award to the offerors whose conforming proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the government and advised that DOE intended to award on the basis of initial offers without discussions. View Decision Matter of: ECG, Inc. File: B-277738 Date: October 20, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ECG, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Global Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP02-97EW40465, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for advisory services for the evaluation of environmental restoration activities. ECG challenges the propriety of the agency's evaluation of ECG's proposal and asserts that DOE failed to determine whether Global's proposed personnel were current employees as required by the solicitation. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued February 13, 1997, stated that the government anticipated making multiple awards with at least one award going to a small business concern under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) Program. [1] The RFP contemplated the award of cost reimbursement, level-of-effort, task order contracts (with performance-based award fees) for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. DOE anticipated that, in total, 133,920 labor-hours of effort (more than 70 full-time employees) would be required per year for all awards made. The successful offerors are to provide advisory support services requiring highly technical, scientific and professional personnel in science, engineering, program and budget analysis, cost estimation and validation, regulatory analysis, computer science and technical writing/editing. The RFP provided for award to the offerors whose conforming proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the government and advised that DOE intended to award on the basis of initial offers without discussions. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors, in descending order of importance: 1. Technical Capability a. Personnel 1. Project Manager 2. Other Personnel b. Past Performance c. Corporate Experience d. Technical Approach e. Project Management 2. Business Management Capability a. Compensation System b. Transition Plan 3. Price Offerors were advised that technical capability would be point scored and that business management capability would be adjectivally rated. Price proposals would be evaluated as to reasonableness and realism. Seventeen written proposals, including those of ECG and Global, were received by the April 14, 1997, closing date. Each offeror submitted written capability information concerning its proposed project manager, other personnel, corporate experience, and past performance. Additionally, as required by the RFP, oral presentations concerning offerors' technical approach, project management approach, and business management capability took place between May 5 and May 20. The proposals were evaluated by a source evaluation panel, comprised of a technical evaluation team (TET), which reviewed the written capability statements and the business evaluation team (BET), which reviewed the financial capability information. The evaluation teams followed a detailed rating plan in reviewing and evaluating the proposals. Because DOE anticipated awarding at least one contract to an 8(a) concern, offers submitted by 8(a) concerns were rated separately from offers submitted by non-8(a) concerns. However, all evaluations were performed using the same evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. Evaluators documented and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and, in internal discussions, reached a consensus regarding final evaluation ratings. Based on the consensus, the evaluators rated each technical capability factor and subfactor using adjectival ratings and corresponding point values on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 for outstanding, 8 for above average, 5 for satisfactory, 3 for below average, and 1 for marginal). The numerical ratings were multiplied by the weight for the factors and the scores for each factor were totaled. [2] A proposal that received all outstanding ratings could receive a maximum point score of 1,000. Business management capability was adjectivally rated using the ratings of outstanding (O), satisfactory (S), and marginal (M).