McShade Enterprises, B-278851, March 23, 1998

B-278851 Mar 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest alleging that agency misevaluated protester's proposal is denied where it is based solely on protester's disagreement with the evaluators' conclusions. McShade principally alleges that its proposal was misevaluated and that the agency should have conducted discussions with. Section E.3 of the RFP provided that proposals were to be evaluated on technical merit and price with technical quality being more important than price. That section cautioned offerors that proposals would be rejected if they were determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment. The section also indicated that all technical factors were of equal importance. That section required offerors to submit a brief but detailed response to topics listed under each factor and stated that "[p]roposals which merely offer to perform the work in accordance with the Statement of Work [SOW] will be rejected.". View Decision Matter of: McShade Enterprises File: B-278851 Date: March 23, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McShade Enterprises protests the rejection of its offer under request for proposals (RFP) No. FCXA-SG-970005-N, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) as a multiple-award Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract solicitation to obtain various designated temporary professional support services to be ordered by government agencies. McShade principally alleges that its proposal was misevaluated and that the agency should have conducted discussions with, or sought clarification from, the protester with regard to shortcomings in its proposal. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 11, 1997, with a September 26 closing date, contemplated the award of multiple-award FSS contracts for 18 different support services to be ordered by individual agencies. (McShade offered contract specialist services.) Section E.3 of the RFP provided that proposals were to be evaluated on technical merit and price with technical quality being more important than price. That section cautioned offerors that proposals would be rejected if they were determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment, if they exhibited a lack of technical competence, or if they indicated a failure to comprehend the complexities and risks of the solicitation requirements. The section also indicated that all technical factors were of equal importance. Section E.2.5 of the RFP listed five technical factors: (1) Executive Summary; (2) Program Management; (3) Training; (4) Quality; and (5) Past Performance. That section required offerors to submit a brief but detailed response to topics listed under each factor and stated that "[p]roposals which merely offer to perform the work in accordance with the Statement of Work [SOW] will be rejected." Finally, section E.1(g) of the RFP provided: The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. By letter dated October 23, the protester was notified that its proposal had been rejected because of technical deficiencies identified under two factors, Program Management and Quality. Following a debriefing and an unsuccessful agency-level protest, McShade filed this protest challenging GSA's determinations. It is not the function of this Office to evaluate technical proposals de novo; rather, in reviewing a protest against an allegedly improper evaluation, we will examine the record only to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. J&E Assocs., Inc., B-278187, Jan. 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 42 at 2-3. The protester's disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Id. at 3. Here, the agency report establishes that the evaluation of McShade's proposal was reasonable and consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. The Program Management factor required a detailed response to the following: "Describe your process for performing the work required in the Statement of Work. This should include the time from receipt of a quote through the completion of a work order." RFP Sec. E.2.5.2. Initially noting that the nature of the services to be provided will vary and be dependent on the particular needs of an ordering agency, the substance of McShade's response to the factor was as follows: At the time of receipt of any contractual authorization, a program plan will be accomplished. This program plan will define the major milestones of the project and the scheduled dates for their completion. Manpower allocations will be based upon this program plan.