SEEMA, Inc., B-277988, December 16, 1997

B-277988 Dec 16, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Discussions regarding protester's low price were adequate where agency did not specifically tell protester that its price was unrealistic. Did tell protester that its price was significantly below the government estimate and not supported by the proposal. Higher technically rated offeror was proper where awardee's proposal was rated more advantageous under each nonprice factor. Awardee's price was reasonable and supported by its proposal. Protester's price was deemed too low and not adequately supported. BACKGROUND The solicitation called for the award of a job order contract (JOC) [1] and stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer was the best overall value to the government. View Decision Matter of: SEEMA, Inc. File: B-277988 Date: December 16, 1997 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SEEMA, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT57-96-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for facility maintenance and repair, and minor construction projects at Fort Eustis, Fort Monroe and Fort Story, Virginia. SEEMA argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to hold meaningful discussions with the protester, and did not perform a proper price/technical trade-off. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation called for the award of a job order contract (JOC) [1] and stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer was the best overall value to the government. The solicitation provided that offerors would be evaluated against four equally weighted factors: management, past performance, small business participation, and price; subfactors and elements to be evaluated were listed under each factor. The solicitation included a unit price book which listed individual unit prices for all types of construction and repair work. The unit prices included labor, material, and equipment for completing the job orders. The Army used a factor of 1 to represent the unit prices. Offerors were required to propose a coefficient to be applied to the prices in the unit price book for work performed during normal and other than normal working hours, a non-prepriced rate for work not included in the unit price book and a bond factor to be applied to the project price to cover the cost of performance and payment bonds. The coefficients proposed by the offerors were required to include all costs for project management and supervision, overhead, profit, labor burden, contingencies and subcontractor profit and overhead. The Army received and evaluated seven proposals, held discussions, and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from all seven offerors. The BAFOs were evaluated as follows: Offeror Total Weighted Tech. Score [2] Avg. Weighted Coefficient Avg. Non-Prepriced Rate Centennial 68.13 1.078 0.42 Offeror A 62.19 1.019 0.26 Offeror B 62.14 1.064 0.15 Offeror C 62.1 1.127 1.22 SEEMA 61.91 0.948 0.2 Offeror D 58.88 1.136 0.22 Offeror E 54.18 1.07 1.15 The Army performed a price/technical trade-off and concluded that Centennial's proposal represented the best value, since it had no weaknesses and offered a price that was supported in its proposal. SEEMA's proposal was rated a lesser value despite its lower proposed price, since it had weaknesses under each nonprice factor, and its offered price appeared too low for adequate performance and the proposal did not explain how SEEMA would be able to perform at its proposed price. Based on these findings, the Army chose Centennial for award. This protest followed. EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS Contractor Office Staffing The Army found that under contractor office staffing, a subfactor of the management factor, Centennial's proposal was more advantageous than SEEMA's, which was found to contain weaknesses. The protester argues that the alleged weakness in its office staffing levels was "minuscule" in terms of the agency's technical scoring (Centennial received 23.38 points while SEEMA received 22.91 points) and that this evaluation subfactor only "concerns how many people will be available to push the paper to run the contract." In short, SEEMA argues that "more or less people [do] not automatically translate into more or less service." The record shows the agency found that the protester did not have sufficient office staff to prepare and negotiate work orders. Further, SEEMA stated in its proposal that it would rely on "corporate staff" to assist its on-site staff during busy periods, but did not further identify the corporate staff at issue or state whether they would be dedicated to this effort. Nor did SEEMA indicate that it had a system in place to track the need for further staffing. [Delete].