TEAM Support Services, Inc., B-279379.2, June 22, 1998

B-279379.2 Jun 22, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TEAM alleges that the agency employee who evaluated proposals was biased against TEAM and unreasonably downgraded TEAM's proposal. TEAM also contends that it should have been awarded the contract because its proposed price was less than TEI's. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government after consideration of technical factors and price. That technical quality was considered more important than price. The technical evaluation factors were: (1) past performance. Eight proposals were received by the January 8. As the anticipated dollar value of the contract was less than $5 million. Were technically unacceptable. TEI's proposal was superior in technical quality and lower in price. View Decision Matter of: TEAM Support Services, Inc. File: B-279379.2 Date: June 22, 1998 Attorneys DECISION TEAM Support Services, Inc. protests the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) award of a support services contract to Transcontinental Enterprises, Inc. (TEI) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-NC-97-10730. TEAM alleges that the agency employee who evaluated proposals was biased against TEAM and unreasonably downgraded TEAM's proposal. TEAM also contends that it should have been awarded the contract because its proposed price was less than TEI's. TEAM Protest, Enclosure 1 at 1-3. We deny the protest. Issued on December 1, 1997, the RFP solicited proposals for operation and maintenance (O&M) support services at several agency facilities in Corvallis and Newport, Oregon, for a basic contract period of 1 year with options for 4 additional years. /1/ RFP Attachment 1 at 1-3; RFP Sec. B.1. The RFP contemplated that the services would be provided on a fixed-price basis and that the contractor would be reimbursed the costs of materials. RFP Sec. B.1. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government after consideration of technical factors and price, and that technical quality was considered more important than price. RFP Sec. M.3. The technical evaluation factors were: (1) past performance; (2) qualifications, work experience, availability, and other demonstrated ability of proposed personnel; (3) management approach, management structure, corporate resources; and (4) transition plan. Id. The RFP stated that the agency intended to award the contract without holding discussions. RFP Sec. L.1. Eight proposals were received by the January 8, 1998 closing date. As the anticipated dollar value of the contract was less than $5 million, EPA conducted the procurement using "fast track" procedures. Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 8, 1998, at 3. The project officer alone evaluated all proposals, while the contracting officer, acting as the source selection official, selected the winning offer for award. After evaluating technical proposals and contacting references as part of the past performance evaluation, the project officer concluded that six of the eight proposals, including TEAM's proposal, were technically unacceptable. The project officer prepared a technical evaluation report which discussed the strengths, weaknesses and technical scores. After reviewing the evaluation report, the contracting officer determined that, of the two technically acceptable proposals, TEI's proposal was superior in technical quality and lower in price. The contracting officer also determined, after comparing the prices and the staffing levels of the various proposals and after comparing TEI's proposed price to the government estimate, that TEI's price was fair and reasonable. Source Selection Decision, Feb. 20, 1998, at 20-22. Accordingly, the contracting officer concluded that TEI's proposal represented the best value to the government, and, on February 20, 1998, awarded the contract to TEI. Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 8, 1998, at 7. After a debriefing, TEAM filed this protest in our Office. /2/ The protester primarily alleges that the project officer was biased against TEAM and, acting in bad faith, unfairly downgraded TEAM's proposal. The protester asserts that the project officer's dislike for TEAM primarily grew out of two cost allowability disputes that arose when TEAM was the incumbent contractor under the Corvallis contract. TEAM alleges that, because the project officer was biased against TEAM, he used his position as the sole evaluator to ensure that negative information was included in the information used to evaluate TEAM's past performance and then downgraded TEAM on the past performance evaluation factor. TEAM Protest, Enclosure 1 at 1-3. The agency responds that the project officer evaluated TEAM's proposal fairly and in good faith. Agency Report at 12.