Possehn Consulting, B-278579, January 9, 1998

B-278579 Jan 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency improperly rejected its price as unrealistically low is sustained because. Questions about a small business offeror's ability to perform at its proposed price in a fixed-price environment are matters of responsibility. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the protester's proposal is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and reasonable. Tahoe National Forests. [1] Possehn argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal on the basis that its prices were too low. The plots were aggregated into nine groups and offerors were to include a unit price for the plots in each group. View Decision Matter of: Possehn Consulting File: B-278579 Date: January 9, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Possehn Consulting protests the award of two contracts--one to Steve Holmes Forestry and one to Shasta Land Management Consultants--by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. R5-06-97-33, issued for the location and installation of permanent forest inventory plots in the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests. [1] Possehn argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal on the basis that its prices were too low, and unreasonably rated the proposal slightly below those of the two awardees in the area of technical merit. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Forest Service issued the RFP here on August 22, 1997, seeking fixed- price proposals for approximately 300 forest health inventory plots. The plots were aggregated into nine groups and offerors were to include a unit price for the plots in each group. The RFP anticipated award to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government, based on the evaluation of price and technical factors, which were equally important. While the RFP included no criteria for the evaluation of price, it identified four technical criteria in descending order of importance: (1) experience establishing permanent forest and/or vegetation inventory plots; (2) past performance on similar contracts during the previous 3 years; (3) experience of key management personnel; and (4) qualifications of offered field personnel. RFP, Amend. 01, Sec. M-1. The RFP also anticipated the possibility that the agency might make multiple awards. RFP Sec. M-2. After receiving 13 proposals, the agency evaluated each offer using a scale of A, B, or C, with A being the highest ranking. The agency also used pluses and minuses in some cases to indicate greater or lesser merit. The following table shows the ratings given to the proposals submitted by Possehn and the two awardees for each of the four technical evaluation factors: [2] OFFEROR Firm Past Management Field Experience Performance Experience Personnel Steve Holmes B+ B A A Shasta B+ B A A Possehn B B B+ A The contracting officer also performed a price analysis by comparing the proposed prices of each offeror with a government estimate. Using this approach, the contracting officer rejected the proposals submitted by Possehn and one other offeror on the basis that the prices were unrealistically low. Contracting Officer's Statement, Nov. 25, 1997, at 8. After excluding the two lowest-priced proposals (including Possehn's), the contracting officer decided that the two proposals with the next lowest prices--the proposals of Shasta Land Management for items 1 through 3, and Steve Holmes Forestry for items 4 through 9--presented the best value to the government. Although there were other higher-rated offerors with higher prices, the award decision stated that "[n]o significant advantages could be gained by paying a higher price." Contracting Officer's Award Statement, Oct. 14, 1997. Awards were made on October 16. After Possehn received notice of the award decision, it filed an agency- level protest, which was denied, and received a debriefing. During this process, Possehn learned that its price was lower than the award price for every item but one. The table below shows Possehn's price and the award price (in bold) for each item: ITEM Possehn Steve Holmes Shasta Land NUMBER Consulting Forestry Management 1 $97.50/plot $180/plot 2 $135.20/plot $180/plot 3 $89.50/plot $180/plot 4 $183.60/plot [3] $169/plot 5 $144.33/plot $179/plot 6 $150.00/plot $179/plot 7 $144.33/plot $189/plot 8 $125.67/plot $169/plot 9 $103.71/plot $169/plot Within 10 days of its debriefing, Possehn filed a protest with our Office and requested consideration of its protest under the express option procedures in our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.10 (1997). We granted Possehn's request. DECISION Possehn first argues that the agency could not properly reject its proposal on the basis that its prices were too low.