L&M Technologies, Inc., B-278044.5, May 8, 1998

B-278044.5 May 08, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Challenge to exclusion of proposal from competitive range on the basis that offeror was not provided opportunity to make an additional oral presentation is denied where the request for proposal revisions did not provide for an oral presentation. Proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range notwithstanding an improved technical score where the agency reasonably concluded that the offeror had no reasonable chance for award in view of the significantly higher technical evaluations of the proposals which were included in the competitive range. This procurement is to acquire technical support services for Western's Corporate Services Office (CSO) in Golden. The procurement consolidates four existing support services contracts and aligns them with changes in Western's organization that have occurred during the past 3 years. View Decision Matter of: L&M Technologies, Inc. File: B-278044.5 Date: May 8, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION L&M Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced Integrated Management Services, Inc., (AIMSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP65-97WA14007, issued by the Western Area Power Administration (Western), Department of Energy (DOE) for technical support services. L&M challenges the agency's elimination of its proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. This procurement is to acquire technical support services for Western's Corporate Services Office (CSO) in Golden, Colorado. These services include realty management, power system training and video production, engineering support, and three information services support tasks: CSO support, corporate applications, and Financial Management System Transition support. The procurement consolidates four existing support services contracts and aligns them with changes in Western's organization that have occurred during the past 3 years. The solicitation, which was issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base year with 4 option years. Section L of the RFP advised offerors that their proposals would consist of an oral presentation of delineated technical information, supplemented by written documentation (e.g., reference information, experience matrix, and summary of exceptions and deviations). Section M stated that technical proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three technical criteria: project management (50 percent), past performance (25 percent), and understanding and approach (25 percent). Cost, while not scored, was used in determining an offeror's understanding of the requirements, in assessing the validity of the offeror's approach to managing and performing the work, and in determining the best overall value to the government. The RFP advised that the proposed cost estimate would not be controlling and that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the government's estimate of the most probable cost (MPC). While technical factors were more important than cost, the RFP advised that "apparent technical advantages will be weighed against the evaluated price" and "[a]n offer exceeding technical requirements will have an advantage over offers which meet requirements with lower cost, only insofar as the offer exceeding technical requirements is considered to be worth the price differential, if any." Award was to be made on the basis of the offer providing the best overall value to the government. Twelve proposals, including those of L&M and AIMSI, were submitted by the May 20, 1997 closing date. After initial review, the source selection official (SSO) determined to exclude certain offers (not including the protester's) from the competitive range. The remaining offerors, including the protester, made oral presentations between July 8 and July 18, 1997. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the oral presentations and written proposals and conducted oral discussions with each offeror immediately following its oral presentation. The cost analyst reviewed proposed costs and made adjustments in calculating an MPC for each offer. The agency requested and obtained best and final offers (BAFO) from the offerors in the competitive range. In that evaluation, AIMSI's proposal received a score of 825 points with an MPC of $16.9 million and L&M's proposal received a score of 665 points with an MPC of $16.4 million. Based on this evaluation, the SSO agreed with the TEP's recommendation to award the contract to AIMSI. After receiving notice of the selection decision and a debriefing, L&M filed a protest with our Office (B-278044.2), challenging the agency's evaluation of L&M's technical proposal and the decision to award the contract at a higher cost than that offered by L&M. Because of a protest from another offeror, DOE took corrective action and our Office dismissed both protests as academic.