Ervin & Associates, Inc., B-279161.2, October 13, 1998

B-279161.2 Oct 13, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors announced in the solicitation and record reasonably supports protester's overall lower technical score. 2. Protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range as not having a reasonable chance of being selected for award in view of agency's receipt of significantly higher-rated. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and business (cost) proposals. Offerors were instructed to provide information to support their proposed costs only for two sample tasks included in the solicitation. Section M-3 listed the following technical evaluation factors (maximum number of possible points under each factor shown in parenthesis): (1) documented evidence demonstrating the experience of the offeror in performing work that is the same as. View Decision Matter of: Ervin & Associates, Inc. File: B-279161.2 Date: October 13, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ervin & Associates, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100C000018561, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for due diligence services /1/ and other related work. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued November 21, 1997, anticipates the award of multiple indefinite-quantity task order contracts. RFP Sec. B-1(b), B-2, I-16. The RFP guarantees a minimum order of $250,000 per contract and a maximum of $30 million per contract. RFP Sec. B-3. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and business (cost) proposals. RFP Sec. L-1. With respect to costs, offerors were instructed to provide information to support their proposed costs only for two sample tasks included in the solicitation. RFP Sec. L-1, L-6. Section M-3 listed the following technical evaluation factors (maximum number of possible points under each factor shown in parenthesis): (1) documented evidence demonstrating the experience of the offeror in performing work that is the same as, or substantially similar to, that required under section C, the statement of work (SOW) (30); (2) demonstrated record (as confirmed by references) of successful past performance of the same or similar work as that to be required under the prospective contract within the last 2 years (20); (3) the qualifications of all proposed key personnel, as outlined only in their resumes (20); (4) demonstrated ability to effectively and efficiently manage the proposed contract (15); and (5) the extent to which the offeror's proposal presents efficient and realistic approaches to performing due diligence services under the sample task orders (included in section J of the RFP) (15). The RFP states that while cost would not be numerically scored, it would be considered in the overall evaluation, and that "proposed cost or price must be considered reasonable and must reflect the proposed technical approach." RFP Sec. M-2. The RFP provides that award will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are considered most advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered. Id. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals the agency received. Each member of the TEP assigned individual technical scores to each proposal under the evaluation factors. The TEP then met to discuss the merits of the proposals; arrived at a consensus score for each proposal; and determined which proposals were technically acceptable. Proposals were then ranked on the basis of consensus scores ranging from a total of 10 to 96 points. Several proposals with total scores of between 10 and 68 points were determined to be technically unacceptable; Ervin's proposal received a total of 76 points (out of 100 possible points) and was found technically acceptable. The contract specialist then evaluated business proposals based on the costs proposed to perform the two sample task orders included in the RFP. The contract specialist's analysis shows that Ervin's total proposed cost for both sample task orders was from 40 to 62 percent higher than the total estimated costs proposed by several firms whose proposals were rated technically superior and were included within the competitive range. /2/ Based on the results of the technical and cost evaluations, the contracting officer concluded that Ervin's proposal did not have a reasonable chance for award, and eliminated the proposal from the competitive range. By letter dated May 15, 1998, the agency informed Ervin that based on the results of the TEP's evaluation, its proposal was no longer being considered for award.