Morrison Knudsen Corporation, B-280261, September 9, 1998

B-280261 Sep 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was reasonable and consistent with solicitation. 2. Selection of lower-priced proposal was reasonable and consistent with solicitation. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation and selection decision were unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. B. The ATAC program is the Navy's program for managing repairable assets. Which have been returned for repair. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose offer was found technically acceptable and was most advantageous to the government based on price and past performance. Which were equal in weight as selection criteria. During the past 5 years) which are in any way relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.". View Decision Matter of: Morrison Knudsen Corporation File: B-280261 Date: September 9, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Morrison Knudsen Corporation (MKC) protests the award of a contract to CFS Logistics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-97-R-0085, issued by the Department of the Navy for operation of the agency's Advanced Traceability and Control (ATAC) program. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation and selection decision were unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. We deny the protest. On September 30, 1997, the agency issued the RFP, for a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery requirements contract to operate the ATAC program for a 1-year base period, with two 6-month option periods. RFP Sec. B. The ATAC program is the Navy's program for managing repairable assets, those which the agency has determined more economical to repair than discard, which have been returned for repair. RFP Sec. C.1, attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW) 1.1. The SOW involved staffing and operating 12 sites in the United States and abroad, providing accountability and control over items of high dollar value or critical to operational requirements, ranging from small electronic circuit cards to large steam-driven deck winches, from the point of failure to intermediate storage points and to the point of repair and back to the end user. RFP Sec. C.1, attachment 1, SOW 1.0 and exhibit 3. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose offer was found technically acceptable and was most advantageous to the government based on price and past performance, which were equal in weight as selection criteria. RFP Sec. M.1(a). It directed offerors to submit proposals in three parts, including a technical proposal, a price proposal, and past performance information. RFP Sec. L.1. It stated that the agency would base its evaluation of proposals on the information presented in the proposals. RFP ec. M.1 The RFP provided for evaluation of technical proposals considering five factors, as follows: overall technical approach to implementing ATAC; quality assurance; management approach; personnel qualifications; and corporate experience. RFP Sec. M.1(e). With regard to corporate experience, the RFP advised as follows: Offerors shall provide a synopsis of their experience within the past six years with contracts of a similar nature and magnitude (e.g., freight forwarding, transportation, and warehousing). Include the same type of information relative to any applicable subcontractor that would be participating in this program. As a minimum, the contractor must provide an example of a contract or function performed or managed within the last six years which involved operation of multiple facilities, including Conus and EXCONUS, involving custody of third party material, electronic data transmission and fluctuating workload requirements. RFP Sec. L.1.I.5. The agency would review this material for technical acceptability. As noted above, the solicitation provided for a comparative evaluation of past performance and instructed offerors to include past performance information in sufficient detail to identify previous experience as it related to the probability of successful accomplishment of the statement of work. It directed offerors to "submit a description of their previous government (federal, state and local) or commercial contracts (all prime and major subcontracts received, or in performance, during the past 5 years) which are in any way relevant to the effort required by this solicitation." RFP Sec. L.1.III. It provided for assessment of risk in the areas of timely delivery of services, technical quality, and businesslike concern for the interests of the customer, considering the number and severity of any problems, the effectiveness of any corrective action taken, and overall work record. RFP Sec. L.1.III, M.1.B. The agency received two proposals--from the protester and from the awardee--on January 9, 1998 and referred them to its source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The SSEB found both proposals unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable.