HSQ Technology, B-279707, July 9, 1998

B-279707 Jul 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST 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 proposals. The RFP was issued on January 6. The requirement is to provide. Test systems that will monitor. Award was to be made on the basis of best value to the government. The technical and past performance factors were stated to be of equal importance and their combined weight was significantly greater than that of cost. One of which was corporate management and key personnel. Offerors were required to assign their key personnel in their proposals and were not to make substitutions except in limited circumstances. View Decision Matter of: HSQ Technology File: B-279707 Date: July 9, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION HSQ Technology protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N47408-97-R-1806, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for a supervisory control and data acquisition system to be known as the Pier Power Monitoring/Utility Control System. HSQ contends that the Navy misevaluated HSQ's proposal and improperly eliminated the proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on January 6, 1997 for a predominantly electrical system to be configured as a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for the Naval Station in San Diego, California. The requirement is to provide, install, maintain, repair, replace, and test systems that will monitor, control, analyze, and provide historical and billing information for certain utility services. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quanti ty contract with provisions for both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable pricing. Award was to be made on the basis of best value to the government. The RFP set forth the following five general evaluation factors: technical; past performance; cost; subcontracting; and software license agreement. The technical and past performance factors were stated to be of equal importance and their combined weight was significantly greater than that of cost. The technical evaluation factor included equally weighted subfactors, one of which was corporate management and key personnel. Offerors were required to assign their key personnel in their proposals and were not to make substitutions except in limited circumstances. In addition, offerors were instructed to provide a cross-reference list if the labor categories in their proposals did not directly match those set forth in the RFP. The RFP listed the following six key personnel positions: project manager; superintendent/site manager; computer programmer; electronic technician; electrician; and controls technician. The solicitation specified the information that key personnel resumes were to include: the time period of applicable experience, the firm at which the experience was gained, a description of duties performed, and the level of responsibility that was held; it also specified required minimum qualifications for each key personnel position. In addition, offerors were required to submit past performance information for all ongoing contracts and all contracts completed within the last 3 years for electrical SCADA systems. The agency received seven proposals, including HSQ's, by the closing date. A technical evaluation board (TEB) reviewed the initial proposals and determined that four of them, including HSQ's, were unacceptable as submitted but susceptible of being made acceptable, and therefore should be included in the competitive range. HSQ's proposal received a rating of "unacceptable but capable" for the technical evaluation factor, and "poor" for the past performance factor, resulting in an overall rating of "unacceptable but capable of being made acceptable." Under the technical subfactor of corporate management and key personnel, the TEB was unable to determine whether HSQ's proposal satisfied the key personnel requirements, noting that HSQ had provided only starting dates for the proposed key personnel's association with the firm; most of the resumes did not include electrical SCADA projects, and those that did, failed to distinguish between electrical SCADA (for which the RFP specified a minimum requirement) and general SCADA experience. Regarding past performance, the TEB noted that HSQ had supplied only references that would provide good comments; however, evaluators contacted references connected with two other current HSQ government contracts of which they had knowledge, and received negative responses. The Navy sent written discussion questions to the competitive range offerors. The five-page list of questions for HSQ included cost, past performance, and technical issues.