Correa Enterprises, Inc., B-277874.4, May 13, 1998

B-277874.4 May 13, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest generally challenging agency's evaluation and conduct of discussions is denied where record indicates that the protester and the awardee were advised of significant weaknesses in their proposals and were treated equally during discussions. That the evaluation of proposals was reasonable and consistent with factors stated in the solicitation. The agency advised potential offerors that it would select for award the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Since the TEP found both offerors were proposing realistic. Which Correa notes was relevant to only one subfactor of a factor. Correa speculates that the agency must have treated SES more favorably during discussions than other offerors. View Decision Matter of: Correa Enterprises, Inc. File: B-277874.4 Date: May 13, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Correa Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Systems Engineering and Security, Inc. (SES) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS01K-97-M-0002, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for facilities management. Correa contends that SES received preferential treatment from the agency. We deny the protest. On January 31, 1997, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-labor-rate, indefinite-quantity contract for facilities management services, primarily in support of information processing facilities in the New England region and upstate New York. RFP Sec. C.1, L.5. The RFP provided a catalog of anticipated services and indicated that the agency would issue task orders with specifically defined scopes and schedules, as needed, to the successful offeror. RFP Sec. C.1, C.2. The agency advised potential offerors that it would select for award the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering price and other factors including, in order of importance, past performance, hiring and retention (with subfactors compensation plans and critical vacancies), and performance management. /1/ RFP Sec. M.2, M.2.1. These technical factors would be more important than price in the selection decision; the agency would evaluate price for realism and reasonableness. RFP Sec. M.2, M.2.3. The agency received 11 proposals on April 28 and referred them to a technical evaluation panel (TEP). The TEP evaluated the proposals for technical merit--Correa and SES received the two highest ratings--and recommended a competitive range of six offers in the event that the contracting officer decided to hold discussions. TEP Report on Initial Offers, July 24, 1997 at 2. The contracting officer decided to make award without discussions, and selected Correa, whose proposal had received the highest technical score overall, for award. The agency provided notices to unsuccessful offerors, including SES, on August 12 and written notice of award to Correa on August 18. On August 26, The Centech Group, informed that the agency had eliminated its proposal from the competitive range prior to the selection decision, filed a protest with our Office, asserting that GSA had not fully evaluated its proposal. As a consequence, the agency decided to reevaluate the proposals of Centech and another offeror and terminated Correa's contract for the convenience of the government. The agency subsequently established a new competitive range of eight offers and decided to hold discussions. The agency conducted discussions by telephone, requested and received best and final offers (BAFO), and referred the revised proposals to the TEP. The evaluators considered additional information from Correa regarding its past performance and increased the protester's score under the past performance factor from 37.3 points (of 50 points available) to 40.2 points, raising the protester's total score from 82.1 points (of 100 points available) to 85 points. /2/ TEP BAFO Report, Dec. 28, 1997 at 32-34. SES's initial proposal had received a nearly perfect past performance score of [DELETED]. Based on information provided with the BAFO, however, SES's score increased significantly [DELETED], for a total score of [DELETED]. /3/ TEP Report on Initial Offers at 4-11, 32; TEP BAFO Report at 17-18, 34. Since SES had also proposed a lower estimated price, and since the TEP found both offerors were proposing realistic, reasonable labor rates, the contracting officer selected SES for award. By letter dated January 16, 1998, the contracting officer notified Correa of her selection. In this protest filed after receiving a debriefing from GSA, Correa contended that GSA did not treat the parties equally during discussions. /4/ Protest at 5.