Cache Box, Inc., B-279892, July 29, 1998

B-279892 Jul 29, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency properly eliminated proposal from competitive range as technically unacceptable where it did not include sufficiently detailed information to establish that offered reservations management software will meet the solicitation requirements. Such that the proposal was at best ambiguous. Cache Box challenges the agency's determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable. The overall required system was comprised of three components: (1) a property management system that enables lodging personnel to create and cancel reservations. Offerors were required to furnish "descriptive literature such as cut sheets. Award was to be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer. View Decision Matter of: Cache Box, Inc. File: B-279892 Date: July 29, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cache Box, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41691-97-R0016, issued by the Department of the Air Force for reservations management software. Cache Box challenges the agency's determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price requirements contract to furnish commercially available software to control reservations at approximately 250 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps lodging facilities world-wide. The overall required system was comprised of three components: (1) a property management system that enables lodging personnel to create and cancel reservations, check guests in or out, create accounting entries and reports, and create other management reports; (2) a web reservation module that enables travelers to directly access the property management system at a specific location and make reservations; and (3) corporate headquarters systems that enable service headquarters to retrieve occupancy information and merge data into consolidated reports. Offerors were required to furnish "descriptive literature such as cut sheets, illustrations, drawings, brochures or any narrative descriptions deemed necessary to establish for the purpose of evaluation and award, the details of the product pertaining to significant elements such as design, materials, components, or performance characteristics which fully support the requirements in the Statement of Need (SON)." RFP, amend. 0006, Addendum to [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, (b) Submission of Offers, Vol. 2, at 109. Award was to be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value and will be most advantageous to the Government" under the following three evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability, as established in the written proposal and "through a visit to the Contractor's facility for a Live Test Demonstration [LTD] of the functional capabilities of the Offeror's software"; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id., Statement of Evaluation Criteria, at 111-114. The Air Force received proposals from eight offerors by closing time on February 20, 1998; Cache Box's and five other offerors' proposals were included in an initial competitive range. The agency then advised the competitive range offerors of the "areas [which] need to be clarified during the [LTD]," and directed that "[i]n addition to the answers given at the [LTD], the questions presented above and any additional questions identified during the [LTD] must be answered in writing within 10 days following the demonstration." Air Force Letter to Cache Box dated March 19, 1998. Based upon evaluation of Cache Box's written proposal, the results of the LTD conducted on March 24, and Cache Box's April 2 response to the agency's questions, the Air Force determined that Cache Box's proposal was technically unacceptable because it failed to demonstrate compliance with the specifications in nine areas. The agency therefore excluded Cache Box's proposal from the revised competitive range (comprised of three proposals). The agency advised Cache Box by letter dated April 10 that its proposal had been rejected and set forth the specific deficiencies that led to the rejection. Following a debriefing on April 20, Cache Box filed this protest. Cache Box challenges the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, primarily arguing that the proposal indicated compliance with the specifications and was not technically unacceptable. Where a protester challenges an agency's elimination of its proposal from the competitive range, our review is limited to considering whether the competitive range determination was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the RFP and applicable regulations and statutes. Loral Sys. Co., B-270755, Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para.