Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A., B-278358, January 20,

B-278358 Jan 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency evaluation of protester's proposal is unobjectionable where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Under best value solicitation in which technical factors were more important than price. Selection on the basis that awardee's overall technical superiority warranted payment of the associated price premium is unobjectionable and consistent with the evaluation scheme where the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's higher-priced proposal as offering a superior program management and technical approach. ASECOSA objects to the evaluation of its proposal and asserts that the determination to award to a firm which did not offer the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal was unreasonable. View Decision Matter of: Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A. File: B-278358 Date: January 20, 1998 Agency evaluation of protester's proposal is unobjectionable where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere disagreement does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Under best value solicitation in which technical factors were more important than price, selection on the basis that awardee's overall technical superiority warranted payment of the associated price premium is unobjectionable and consistent with the evaluation scheme where the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee's higher-priced proposal as offering a superior program management and technical approach. Attorneys DIGEST DECISION Compania De Asesoria Y Comercio, S.A. (ASECOSA) protests the award of a contract to CBH Construcciones, S.A. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJN21-97-R-0039, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds maintenance services at various U.S. military installations in Panama. ASECOSA objects to the evaluation of its proposal and asserts that the determination to award to a firm which did not offer the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued July 18, 1997, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a base year with a 1-year option. The RFP was for grounds maintenance services at 11 installations on the south side of the isthmus of Panama. The statement of work (SOW) at section C.5 listed 15 requirements, including: mowing, edging and trimming of improved grounds and semi-improved grounds, tree pruning, resodding, removal of dead/down trees, replanting trees and shrubs, leaf and debris removal, sanding and maintaining specified playgrounds, clearing right-of-way of aerial electrical lines, insect and disease control to damaged plants, clearing area, and special grass cutting services. At section M, the RFP provided for award to the offeror whose conforming proposal was determined to be the best value to the government. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance, except as specifically otherwise stated: 1. Management a. Past Performance b. General Management Techniques 2. Technical a. Technical Approach 3. Quality Control a. Specific Inspection Techniques b. Corrective Action 4. Price Management was more important than either technical or quality control, which were stated to be of equal importance, and price was least important. Subfactors under management and quality control were stated to be of equal importance. The RFP provided that each factor and subfactor, with the exception of price, would be evaluated using color/adjectival ratings--green/outstanding, blue/good, yellow/acceptable, orange/susceptible, and red/unacceptable--which would represent the evaluators' views as to an offeror's understanding of the problem, compliance with the requirements, and the soundness of its approach. In addition, performance risk ratings--green/low, blue/moderate, beige/high, and neutral [1]--were used to represent the evaluator's assessment of an offeror's probability of successful accomplishment of the requirement, based on the offeror's record of performance for the past 3 years. [2] The RFP advised that overall price would be evaluated by adding the price for the base requirement to the price for the option. The RFP also provided for a cost realism analysis, which included an assessment of whether the offeror's proposed price reflected a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements. The agency received five proposals, including those of ASECOSA (the incumbent contractor) and CBH, by the August 18 closing date. A four-member source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals based on a 24-question checklist, which included detailed management and technical criteria. [3] Based on the initial evaluation, four of the proposals, including ASECOSA's and CBH's, were included in the competitive range.