SCIENTECH, Inc., B-277805.2, January 20, 1998

B-277805.2 Jan 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable where: (1) the protester's proposal was considered technically acceptable overall and on each evaluation factor. (2) the past performance/customer satisfaction evaluation did not consider the fact that the protester and its proposed subcontractor were incumbent contractors. The protester contends that DOE's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range. Unreasonably failed to consider cost or price as well as significant relevant past performance information that was highlighted in SCIENTECH's proposal. Would have a ceiling price of $25 million. View Decision Matter of: SCIENTECH, Inc. File: B-277805.2 Date: January 20, 1998 *REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SCIENTECH, Inc., protests the Department of Energy's (DOE) decision to exclude it from the competitive range established under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP07-97ID13485 for advisory and assistance support services in support of DOE's Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID). The protester contends that DOE's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and that its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range. We sustain the protest because DOE, in making its competitive range determination, unreasonably failed to consider cost or price as well as significant relevant past performance information that was highlighted in SCIENTECH's proposal. Issued on March 31, 1997, the RFP contemplated award of three to five indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, cost reimbursement contracts to replace several expiring advisory and assistance support services contracts. [1] Each contract would be for a period of 5 years, would include cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing provisions, and would have a ceiling price of $25 million. The work would be performed in response to task orders issued by the contracting officer. The RFP required offers for services in two general areas-- engineering/technical services and management/professional services. The RFP required offers to include ceiling rates for the proposed fees as well as ceilings for burdened labor rates for a large number of labor categories that might be used in performing the work. Under the RFP's evaluation scheme, contracts were to be awarded to those offerors whose proposals were determined to be most advantageous after evaluation of proposals on performance approach and cost/rate criteria. The performance approach criteria and their relative weights (in percentage terms) were: management approach (55 percent), past performance/experience (25 percent); and subcontracting approach (20 percent). The RFP stated that performance approach criteria would be given point scores and assigned adjectival ratings but the cost/rate criterion would not be point scored or adjectivally rated; instead, cost/rate proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and appropriateness of proposed rates. The RFP also stated that the performance approach criteria were considered significantly more important than the cost/rate criterion, but provided that, if the proposed rates of a higher-scored proposal were higher than other proposals being considered for award, the government would determine if the advantages of the higher- scored proposal were worth the additional rate costs. Twenty proposals were received by the May 28, 1997, due date for receipt of initial proposals. The source evaluation panel (SEP) evaluated initial proposals; overall technical scores ranged from a low of just [deleted] percent to a high of [deleted] percent. The SEP determined that 17 of the 20 initial proposals were acceptable. SCIENTECH's proposal was rated as acceptable overall, as well as on each of the three technical evaluation criteria, and was ranked [deleted] with an overall score of [deleted] percent. [2] The SEP was briefed by the DOE financial advisor, who evaluated cost/rate proposals for reasonableness, but did not compare or rank the offerors' proposed prices or labor rates. The SEP decided that there was a "natural, logical scoring break" between the seventh [deleted] and eighth [deleted] highest-rated offers and that offers rated at less than [deleted] did not have a reasonable chance for selection. Accordingly, the SEP, with the concurrence of the source selection official, included only the seven top-rated proposals in the competitive range and excluded SCIENTECH's lower-rated proposal. By letter of August 11, the contracting officer notified SCIENTECH of this determination. After discussions were held with the competitive range offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) received and evaluated, by letter of September 26, 1997, DOE notified SCIENTECH that it had awarded four contracts pursuant to the RFP.