Possehn Consulting, B-278579.2, July 29, 1998

B-278579.2 Jul 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency decision to narrow the competitive range without considering protester's low proposed price was improper where proposal received good ratings and was not determined to be technically unacceptable. 2. Protester's contention that evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable is sustained where the record shows that the agency's evaluation materials ignored evidence of required experience provided by the protester in its best and final offer. Possehn argues that the agency's award decision is based on an unreasonable evaluation of its proposal. BACKGROUND This protest is Possehn's second challenge to the Forest Service's procurement for permanent forest inventory plots in the above-named national forests. View Decision Matter of: Possehn Consulting File: B-278579.2 Date: July 29, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Possehn Consulting protests the award of a contract to Steve Holmes Forestry 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, as part of the agency's Forest Health Pilot Monitoring Project. Possehn argues that the agency's award decision is based on an unreasonable evaluation of its proposal. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND This protest is Possehn's second challenge to the Forest Service's procurement for permanent forest inventory plots in the above-named national forests. The purpose of these plots is to permit long-term monitoring of the health of these forests. A brief history of the procurement is set forth below. The RFP was issued for these services on August 22, 1997, seeking fixed-priced proposals for approximately 300 forest health inventory plots, aggregated into nine groups. 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. As modified by amendment 01, section M-1 of the RFP identified four technical criteria in descending order of importance: (1) offeror's 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. The RFP also anticipated the possibility that the agency might make multiple awards. RFP Sec. M-2. After receiving 13 proposals; evaluating each proposal against the four technical criteria using a rating scale of A, B, or C; and comparing the proposed price of each offeror with the government's cost estimate, the Forest Service rejected the two lowest-priced proposals--including the proposal submitted by Possehn--and split the award between Holmes and Shasta Land Management, the two offerors with the next-lowest-priced proposals. The Forest Service explained that it was rejecting the two lowest-priced proposals because it did not believe the work could be performed properly at the offered prices. Possehn protested the rejection of its proposal because of its low price, and also challenged several of the technical evaluation conclusions. Our Office sustained Possehn's protest after concluding that any concern about the reasonableness of Possehn's low prices could not be considered other than as a responsibility matter. Possehn Consulting, B-278579, Jan. 9, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 10 at 4. As a result, we recommended that the Forest Service either refer the question of Possehn's responsibility to the Small Business Administration for a final determination under the certificate of competency procedures, or reinstate the proposal to the competition and perform a new cost/technical tradeoff among the offerors. Id. at 5. Electing instead to reevaluate proposals, the agency, on January 11, 1998, excluded from the competitive range four proposals deemed unacceptable. Written discussion questions were provided to the remaining offerors, including Possehn and Holmes, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received. The following table shows the results of the evaluation of each of the nine proposals remaining in the competitive range against the technical criteria, ranked from lowest to highest price. OFFEROR Experience Past Key Qualifications Total Performance Personnel Price Possehn B B B B $ 59,013 Holmes A A A A $ 65,043 Offeror A B B B B $ 66,300 Offeror B A A A A $ 66,951 All or none Offeror C A- A A A $ 70,515 Offeror D B B B B- $ 20,430 Items 1 and 3 Offeror E A A A A- $ 87,464 Offeror F A A A A- $ 93,110 Offeror G A A A A- $256,940 As shown above, Possehn's proposal was assigned a rating of "B" under each of the four evaluation criteria.