J&E Associates, Inc., B-278187, January 5, 1998

B-278187 Jan 05, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the factors announced in the solicitation. J&E argues that the Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were improper. The successful contractor will provide administrative and professional staff. The RFP was issued on April 30. Offerors were to submit a written proposal and to make an oral presentation. The purpose of the oral presentation was to assess the offeror's knowledge and understanding of the solicitation requirements. Was determined to be the most advantageous to the government. Price (the combined weight of the three technical factors was approximately equal to that of price). View Decision Matter of: J&E Associates, Inc. File: B-278187 Date: January 5, 1998 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J&E Associates, Inc. protests the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to Zeiders Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-97- R-5017, issued by the Department of the Navy to operate and manage Family Service Centers (FSC) at three installations in the San Diego, California commuting region. J&E argues that the Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. The three FSCs at San Diego Naval Station, North Island Naval Air Station, and the San Diego Submarine Base currently provide comprehensive programs and services to single and married Navy members and their families to improve the personal and family readiness of the military personnel and to assist with adaptation to military life. The successful contractor will provide administrative and professional staff, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to perform the specific categories of programs and services identified in the RFP's performance work statement. The RFP was issued on April 30, 1997, for the purpose of determining the cost of in-house versus contractor performance under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract plus award fee for a base period with four 1-year options. Offerors were to submit a written proposal and to make an oral presentation. The purpose of the oral presentation was to assess the offeror's knowledge and understanding of the solicitation requirements, the offeror's technical capability to provide these services, and the offeror's ability to sustain quality and cost effective programs and services for the life of the contract. The RFP provided that award would be to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. As amended, the RFP listed four evaluation factors: technical approach oral presentation (25 percent); management plan (25 percent); past performance (50 percent); and price (the combined weight of the three technical factors was approximately equal to that of price). The RFP cautioned offerors to submit their best terms in their initial proposals, since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and select a contractor without discussions unless the agency subsequently determined that discussions were necessary. [deleted] including Zeiders and J&E, submitted proposals in response to the RFP. A technical evaluation board evaluated the technical proposals under an adjectival rating scale of outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal, and unacceptable. The evaluation board's consensus adjectival rating and evaluated prices were as follows: [deleted] Based on these evaluation results, the agency's source selection authority decided that Zeiders's proposal, which received the second highest technical rating overall and was the lowest priced, represented the best value to the government. A subsequent cost comparison between Zeiders's proposal and the government's proposal resulted in the determination that contractor performance was preferable to performance in-house. Following a debriefing, J&E filed this protest. J&E contends that its proposal was misevaluated under the management plan and past performance factors compared to Zeiders's proposal. More specifically, J&E's challenge of the agency's evaluation of its management plan proposal focuses on two subfactors: organizational structure and staffing plan. J&E argues that its proposal was improperly downgraded because of the agency's judgment that [deleted]. It is not the function of this Office to evaluate technical proposals de novo; rather, in reviewing a protest against an allegedly improper evaluation, we will examine the record only to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Richard M. Milburn High School, B-277018, Aug.