The Xerxe Group, Inc., B-280180.2; B-280180.3; B-280180.4,

The Xerxe Group, Inc., B-280180.2; B-280180.3; B-280180.4, BNUMBER: B-280180.2; B-280180.3; B-280180.4 DATE: September 28, 1998 TITLE: The Xerxe Group, Inc., B-280180.2; B-280180.3; B-280180.4, September 28, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:The Xerxe Group, Inc. File: B-280180.2; B-280180.3; B-280180.4 Date:September 28, 1998 Andrew Searcy, Jr. for the protester. Louise E. Hansen, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Neither the Small Business Act nor any other statute precludes a contracting agency from comparatively evaluating the proposal of a small disadvantaged business concern where the solicitation's evaluation factors contemplate such an evaluation. DECISION The Xerxe Group, Inc. protests the award of contracts to any other offerors under requests for proposals (RFP) Nos. SP0600-97-R-0055-0109 (-0109), SP0600-R-0055-0110 (-0110), and SP0600-97-R-0055-0111 (-0111), issued by the Defense Energy Support Center, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for the direct supply of natural gas to various installations in the United States. Xerxe, a small disadvantaged business (SDB) concern, protests the agency's evaluation of its proposals. We deny the protests. The protested natural gas requirements were originally to be procured under RFP No. SP0600-97-R-0055 (-0055), issued on June 4, 1997. This RFP provided for the award of fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery type contracts, or the issuance of basic ordering agreements (BOA), depending on the contract line item number (CLIN). RFP -0055 stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the offer determined to be the best value to the government, and listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Experience (A) Transportation (B) Supply Management (C) Quality of Previous Experience (2) Past Performance (A) Timeliness (B) Reliability (C) Customer Satisfaction[1] (3) Price (4) Socioeconomic Commitment The RFP specified that technical experience was more important than past performance, and that technical experience and past performance combined were significantly more important than price. RFP at 176. The RFP added that price was significantly more important than socioeconomic commitment. In addition, the RFP provided for a 10-percent evaluation preference for SDB concerns, whereby 10 percent would be added to the total prices (for evaluation purposes only) of all non-SDB concerns' offers prior to the source selection decision. RFP at 203. The RFP set forth detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Specifically, it required that offerors, among other things, complete the pricing sheets and technical experience form included in the RFP. RFP at 175. The technical experience form solicited detailed information regarding, among other things, the offeror's experience in transporting natural gas, in performing supply management, and in handling previous or current contracts with similar end users, and the experience of certain of the offeror's personnel. RFP Attachment II. The RFP explained that the offerors' completed technical experience forms would be used in evaluating the offerors' proposals under the technical experience and past performance evaluation factors and their relevant subfactors. RFP at 176-77. Xerxe responded to RFP -0055 by completing certain of the solicitation's standard forms, indicating its intention to enter into BOAs and/or contracts, and providing a narrative technical proposal, which included a "Company Profile & Capability Statement," a "Financial Information" section, and a section purportedly describing its "Natural Gas Supply Sources." Xerxe's submission did not, however, include a completed technical experience form or much of the information required for completion of the form. The agency subsequently informed Xerxe that it could not evaluate Xerxe's proposal as submitted, and sent Xerxe a blank copy of the technical experience form that had been included in the RFP, and requested that Xerxe complete it. Xerxe responded by completing a small portion of the form, identifying three transportation agreement numbers and the CLINs it expected to deliver via the applicable pipelines, and the names of three individuals and each individual's years of experience. Xerxe's submission did not include any other information. Based on its submission, Xerxe's proposal was rated as "poor" under the technical experience factor.