Beneco Enterprises, Inc., B-278591, February 17, 1998

B-278591 Feb 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Elimination of protester's proposal from competitive range is unobjectionable where agency reasonably determined that the proposal contained multiple deficiencies in three of five technical/management evaluation factors. Beneco protests that the agency erroneously determined that Beneco's proposal was so deficient as not to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. (5) project execution and technical capability. /1/ Each evaluation factor and subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale /2/ and assigned a risk rating. Is able to plan. Specifically noting that "[i]n no case shall words like 'we will comply with the requirements of the contract' or equivalent statements be acceptable to meet the requirements of the RFP.". View Decision Matter of: Beneco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-278591 Date: February 17, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beneco Enterprises, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4416-97-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Air Force as a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) procurement for maintenance, repair, and minor construction work at various Air Force facilities in Maryland. Beneco protests that the agency erroneously determined that Beneco's proposal was so deficient as not to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued by the Air Force on July 28, 1997, contemplated award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a base period with four 1-year option periods. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering technical, management, and cost factors, with technical/management factors being of primary importance. Section M of the RFP listed the following technical/management evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) project management ability; (2) project development/planning and minimal design; (3) subcontracting support capability; (4) experience and past/present performance; and (5) project execution and technical capability. /1/ Each evaluation factor and subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale /2/ and assigned a risk rating. The RFP advised offerors that proposals must demonstrate that the offeror has sufficient technical expertise, experience, and resources to perform the contract requirements, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion, specifically noting that "[i]n no case shall words like 'we will comply with the requirements of the contract' or equivalent statements be acceptable to meet the requirements of the RFP." Several offerors, including Beneco, submitted initial proposals by the September 4 closing date. Upon conducting an initial review, the agency identified numerous weaknesses and deficiencies in Beneco's proposal. By letter telecopied to Beneco on October 13, the agency transmitted seven deficiency reports (DRs) and two clarification requests (CRs) related to specific portions of Beneco's proposal, advising Beneco, "You must explain and clarify questions and deficiencies on your proposal, in writing, via [f]acsimile not later than 5:00 PM, 14 Oct 97." /3/ Beneco telecopied its responses to the agency at 11:16 a.m. the following day. Thereafter, the agency reevaluated Beneco's proposal taking into consideration Beneco's responses to the CRs and DRs, and concluded that Beneco's proposal still contained multiple weaknesses and deficiencies and that the proposal would require major revisions to meet the RFP's minimum requirements. By memorandum dated October 20, the agency advised Beneco that its proposal had been eliminated from the competitive range. Beneco subsequently requested a debriefing, which the agency conducted on November 6. Beneco filed this protest on November 7. Beneco protests that the agency erred in determining that its proposal was so deficient as to have no reasonable chance of being selected for award and, therefore, that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from the competitive range. As discussed below, the record provides no basis to object to the agency's determination. /4/ Where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable, the agency is not required to include the proposal in the competitive range. Laboratory Sys. Servs., Inc., B-256323, June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 359 at 2; see also Beneco Enters., Inc., 70 Comp.Gen. 574, 578 (1991), 91-1 CPD Para.