WP Photographic Services, B-278897.4, May 12, 1998

B-278897.4 May 12, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights On the basis of an evaluation which was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria. That the proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for award because major revision was necessary to correct substantial deficiencies in the relatively high-priced proposal. WP contends that the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range lacked a reasonable basis and was otherwise improper. The purpose of the contract is to obtain visual imaging end products for launch and non-launch events for the 45th Space Wing and NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The RFP stressed that the VITC was one of the largest contracts of its type in the Air Force and the quality and timeliness of its products and services have a far-reaching effect. View Decision Matter of: WP Photographic Services File: B-278897.4 Date: May 12, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION WP Photographic Services protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08650-96-R-0415, issued by the Department of the Air Force for visual information end products and technical services in support of pre-launch, launch, post-launch, and non-launch operations, also called the Visual Information Technical Contract (VITC). WP contends that the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range lacked a reasonable basis and was otherwise improper. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 20, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, labor-hour contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The purpose of the contract is to obtain visual imaging end products for launch and non-launch events for the 45th Space Wing and NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The RFP stressed that the VITC was one of the largest contracts of its type in the Air Force and the quality and timeliness of its products and services have a far-reaching effect. The RFP further stressed that the critical nature of the requirement dictates that full support capability be available on short notice with quick turnaround delivery times and that the contractor must be fully capable of simultaneous operation for the various launch programs. One of the significant requirements of the solicitation was the offeror's preparation of a VITC statement of work (SOW) incorporating the stated requirements of the RFP. The RFP provided for a best value award to be determined by an integrated assessment of the cost criterion, the specific criteria, assessment criteria, proposal risk, performance risk, and general considerations. The RFP listed the following criteria: (1) Technical/Management (a) Project Management (b) Image Acquisition/Processing/End Products (2) Cost (a) Completeness (b) Reasonableness (c) Realism (3) General Considerations All technical evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal to cost. General considerations were of lesser importance but were to be an important consideration in the award decision. The RFP also provided that proposals would be evaluated for proposal risk, which would involve an assessment of the risk associated with the offeror's proposed approach to accomplish the requirements. Proposals were also to be evaluated for performance risk, which would involve an assessment of the probability of the offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated relevant present and past performance. /1/ [Deleted] initial proposals were received by the June 20, 1997 closing date. After evaluation of the initial proposals, the Air Force determined that all proposals contained informational deficiencies and format errors. Amendment No. 0003 was issued to clarify common problem areas and allow all offerors an opportunity to revise their proposals. Each offeror submitted a revised proposal by the September 19 closing date. Each revised proposal was evaluated for performance and proposal risk in addition to being evaluated under a color/adjectival rating scheme for each of the evaluation factors. /2/ A competitive range briefing was provided by the evaluators to the Source Selection Authority. The proposals of [deleted] firms, including WP, were excluded from the competitive range. The agency reports that the competitive range was determined on the basis of price and technical merit, including proposal deficiencies and their potential for correction and the possibility of selection for award. Offerors were notified of exclusion from the competitive range by letters dated December 12, 1997. A debriefing was held with WP on January 23, 1998, in which the agency identified areas of WP's proposal needing improvement. WP filed this protest on February 2, 1998.