Biospherics, Inc., B-278278, January 14, 1998

B-278278 Jan 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the agency failed to inform the firm that its cost/pricing was considered unrealistically low. Where the firm was not given the opportunity to comment on adverse past performance information considered during the evaluation. The NRRS will allow the public to make reservations via telephone or internet. Are located on various federal lands. An independent government estimate (IGE) was prepared that consisted only of unit prices for the CLINs. Offerors were informed that award would be based on a cost/technical trade-off. That technical evaluation factors were more important than price. The following technical evaluation factors were stated in descending order of importance: (1) soundness of approach. View Decision Matter of: Biospherics, Inc. File: B-278278 Date: January 14, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Biospherics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Park.Net, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FS-WO-97-07, issued by the U.S. Forest Service for the development, implementation, and operation of the National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS). Biospherics challenges the evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, and cost/technical trade-off decision. We sustain the protest on the basis that the Forest Service conducted prejudicially inadequate and misleading discussions with Biospherics. The RFP provides for the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract for a 9.5-year contract period to develop and operate a "state-of-the-art reservation service, complete with facilities, personnel, marketing, materials, equipment, communications, information distribution, and transaction record processing." The NRRS will allow the public to make reservations via telephone or internet, or at field locations, for federal recreation facilities; these facilities include campgrounds, picnic areas, group use areas, caves, cabins, lookouts, and wilderness access, and are located on various federal lands, national recreation areas, wildernesses, water resource development projects, and historic sites. As amended, the RFP sought pricing for five contract line items (CLIN): (1) operation of the national call center; (2) operation of the internet sales channel; (3) support for field location sales; (4) recording and tracking for field locations; and (5) support for future sales channels. An independent government estimate (IGE) was prepared that consisted only of unit prices for the CLINs. Offerors were informed that award would be based on a cost/technical trade-off, and that technical evaluation factors were more important than price. The following technical evaluation factors were stated in descending order of importance: (1) soundness of approach, (2) technical experience, and (3) past performance. /1/ The RFP also provided that price proposals would be evaluated in terms of "cost allowability, allocability, reasonableness, and realism, and by comparing prices proposed to other prices offered in terms of competitiveness." Proposal preparation instructions informed offerors of the information required under each evaluation factor. Detailed cost and pricing data was required to support offerors' price offers. Among other things, offerors were to provide direct labor cost information, including hourly labor rates and escalation rates, cost breakdown of materials, equipment, and other direct costs, and automated data processing system costs. Proposals were received from three offerors, including Biospherics and Park.Net. After an initial evaluation of technical and price proposals, all three offers were included in the competitive range. Biospherics' and Park.Net's proposals were determined to be "above average and demonstrated the ability to carry out the duties described in the solicitation." Written and oral discussions were conducted. Because all three offerors' CLIN unit pricing was higher than that of the IGE, the agency informed the offerors as follows: Your pricing is rather high. We request that you review your cost elements to determine the best pricing scheme your firm can present under this proposal. Revised technical and price proposals were received. Although the revised proposals were not scored, the agency evaluated these proposals "to identify issues for negotiation and to prepare for the site visits." Site visits with the offerors and another round of technical and price discussions were conducted. Also, the agency amended the solicitation to, among other things, provide for pricing against three estimates (high, most probable, and low) of the number of possible transactions under the CLINs.