McNeil Technologies, Inc., B-278904.2, April 2, 1998

B-278904.2 Apr 02, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency failed to award a contract to a small disadvantaged business in derogation of solicitation award provision is denied where the solicitation language addressing awards indicated only that the agency contemplated the award of contracts to a small business. Because its proposal was the highest-ranked one submitted by a small disadvantaged business (SDB). The agency was required to award McNeil a contract in order to comply with the solicitation's award terms. DOE combined technical services that were currently being performed for EIA under 11 separate support services contracts. Since each contract will have cost reimbursement and fixed-price provisions. Task orders are to be issued on both a cost-plus-fixed-fee and a fixed-price basis. View Decision Matter of: McNeil Technologies, Inc. File: B-278904.2 Date: April 2, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McNeil Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of Energy's (DOE) failure to award the firm a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-97EI30000, issued by DOE for technical services for the Energy Information Administration (EIA). /1/ The protester contends that, because its proposal was the highest-ranked one submitted by a small disadvantaged business (SDB), the agency was required to award McNeil a contract in order to comply with the solicitation's award terms. We deny the protest. DOE issued an omnibus RFP, referred to as the EIA Omnibus Procurement (EOP), via the Internet on July 7, 1997, along with a 27-page document titled "Answers Regarding Questions to Draft RFP," which provided responses to more than 200 questions that had been submitted concerning a previously disseminated draft solicitation. /2/ Under the EOP, DOE combined technical services that were currently being performed for EIA under 11 separate support services contracts. The EOP sought separate proposals for three functional areas/contract line item numbers (CLIN) including information management and product production support services (CLIN 001); energy analysis and forecasting (EAF) support services (CLIN 002); and information technology support services (CLIN 003). The EOP provided for multiple indefinite quantity awards with awardees becoming eligible for post-award competition for task orders for a 3-year base period with one 2-year option. Since each contract will have cost reimbursement and fixed-price provisions, task orders are to be issued on both a cost-plus-fixed-fee and a fixed-price basis. DOE issued two amendments to the RFP. Item 22 of the RFP cover sheet stated that the procurement was being conducted under full and open competition, without indicating that it was subject to any restrictions or set-asides. At section L.22, entitled "Number of Awards," the RFP stated, in relevant part: "The Government contemplates individual awards for at least one small business, at least one small/disadvantaged business, and at least one large business under each functional area of the EOP solicitation." In a solicitation cover letter, DOE stated: To promote small, small/disadvantaged business participation under the EOP, the Government anticipates at least one (but not limited to one) contract award to a small disadvantaged business, and at least one (but not limited to one) award to a small business under each functional area. Also, large businesses will be required to submit subcontracting plans pursuant to [Federal Acquisition Regulation] FAR 52.219-14. The basis of award to small/small disadvantaged (as well as large) business is best value. The cover letter also expressly provided that it was not an integral part of the RFP and that, in the event of a conflict between the cover letter and the RFP, the RFP would control. In the July 7 "Answers Regarding Questions to Draft RFP," in response to a question concerning the number of contracts to be awarded, the agency had stated that: EIA will award a minimum of 3 awards to technically qualified firms in each functional area: at least one to a qualified 8(a), at least one to a qualified SB, and at least one to a technically competent large business. At section L.15, the RFP stated that DOE would "award contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the Government, cost or price and other factors, specified elsewhere in this solicitation, considered," and advised that DOE intended to award on the basis of initial offers without discussions. Section M-1(B) reiterated that award would be made to the offerors whose conforming proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the government. Section M-3 of the RFP identified the following non-cost evaluation factors: 1. Business management, technical and organizational approach 2. Past and present experience 3. Corporate resource management 4.