Acepex Management Corporation, B-279173.5, July 22, 1998

B-279173.5 Jul 22, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency conducted meaningful discussions where it brought its principal concerns about the protester's proposal to the protester's attention through discussion questions that were not misleading. The agency was not required to hold discussions regarding every weakness identified in the proposal. 2. " that the awardee's price for purposes of a fixed-price contract was realistic. Reasonable based on a comparison with the other offerors' line item and total prices and the government estimate is unobjectionable. 3. Is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. The successful contractor under the RFP will be required to provide. The RFP added that "[e]ach offeror's cost (price) proposal . . . will be evaluated to determine realism. View Decision Matter of: Acepex Management Corporation File: B-279173.5 Date: July 22, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Acepex Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to OMSERV Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04626-97-R0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military family housing maintenance (MFHM) services for Travis Air Force Base (AFB), California. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 16, 1997, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period with four 1-year options. The successful contractor under the RFP will be required to provide, with limited exception, all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the MFHM services. RFP Sec. C.1.1. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror submitting the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the government, and listed the following evaluation criteria: (1) Past Performance, (2) Staffing, (3) Quality Controls, (4) Maintenance Management, and (5) Cost (Price). RFP Sec. M-16C.b. The RFP specified that the first four criteria would be evaluated under a color/adjectival rating scheme to assess how well the offeror's proposed approach meets the evaluation standards and requirements set forth in the solicitation, and for proposal risk to assess "the risk associated with [the] offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation." /1/ Id. The RFP added that "[e]ach offeror's cost (price) proposal . . . will be evaluated to determine realism, completeness, and reasonableness in relation to the solicitation requirements." Id. at Sec. M-16C.b.(5). The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested that the offerors' proposals consist of three volumes. Volume 1 was to include, among other things, a completed price schedule; volume 2 was to include the technical proposal, divided into three sections addressing staffing, quality control, and maintenance management; and volume 3 was to describe relevant past performance. RFP Sec. L-903. The agency received 15 proposals, and included 10 proposals in the competitive range. Discussions were held, and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, received, and evaluated. The agency conditionally awarded a contract to Crimson Enterprises as the offeror submitting the proposal determined most advantageous to the government. /2/ Three offerors, including Acepex, filed protests with our Office challenging the propriety of the conditional award to Crimson, each arguing, among other things, that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. On February 17, 1998, the agency informed our Office that it would reopen discussions, request and evaluate new BAFOs, and make a new source selection decision. Shortly thereafter, our Office dismissed the protests as academic. BMAR & Assoc., Inc.; Satellite Servs., Inc.; Acepex Management Corp., B-279173 et al., Feb. 18, 1998. The agency then conducted written discussions with the 10 offerors, and requested and received new BAFOs. OMSERV's proposal was rated by the cognizant source selection evaluation team (SSET) as "blue" with "low" risk under the maintenance management and quality controls evaluation criteria, and "green" with "low" risk under the past performance and staffing evaluation criteria, at a price of $17,350,352. Acepex's proposal was evaluated as "green" with "low" risk under each evaluation criterion, at a price of $20,307,543. The source selection authority determined that OMSERV's proposal, which was the lowest-priced one received and was one of three proposals to have received two "blue" with "low" risk and two "green" with "low" risk ratings, represented the best value to the government.