Du & Associates, Inc., B-280283.3, December 22, 1998

B-280283.3 Dec 22, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest of technical evaluation is denied where it is merely based on protester's disagreement with the evaluators' conclusions. 2. Protest that discussions were not meaningful is denied where record establishes that protester was led into the areas in which the agency was concerned that the proposal needed amplification and improvement. D&A principally alleges that its proposal was misevaluated and that HUD failed to conduct meaningful discussions. Agency requirements were set forth in a detailed statement of work (SOW). Award was to be made on a best value basis considering technical merit and. The most important technical factor (worth 50 points out of a possible total of 120) is entitled Prior Experience and provides as follows: Offerors's proposal demonstrates experience. View Decision Matter of: Du & Associates, Inc. File: B-280283.3 Date: December 22, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Du & Associates, Inc. (D&A) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21184, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for multifamily real estate assessment and analysis services. D&A principally alleges that its proposal was misevaluated and that HUD failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 22, 1998, contemplated the award of five separate fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts for different geographic regions. Agency requirements were set forth in a detailed statement of work (SOW). RFP, Section C. Award was to be made on a best value basis considering technical merit and, secondarily, price. RFP amendment 1, Section M.IV. The most important technical factor (worth 50 points out of a possible total of 120) is entitled Prior Experience and provides as follows: Offerors's proposal demonstrates experience, knowledge and ability to perform, and manage the services listed in the [SOW]. Offeror's proposal provides documented evidence of previous performance of similar or related work, as well as provides evidence of the qualifications of the professional staff proposed (including subcontractors and consultants) to perform the tasks identified in the [SOW]. RFP amendment 1, Section M.III.A (hereinafter "Factor 1"). Past Performance, the second most important technical factor (worth 40 points), is not at issue in this protest. See RFP amendment 1, section M.III.B. The final technical factor (worth 30 points), entitled Management Capability and Quality Control, provides, in relevant part, as follows: The offeror's proposal provides evidence regarding the ability to perform all tasks under the contract in a quality and efficient manner, including the management of subcontractors, if any. The offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the magnitude of the contract requirements and of organizational ability to manage the work required. RFP amendment 1, section M.III.C (hereinafter "Factor 3"). With respect to Factor 1, the RFP's proposal preparation instructions cautioned offerors to provide evidence of qualifications of key staff performing the same or similar work to the SOW and specifically required the submission of job descriptions, resumes and/or organizational charts reflecting key personnel to perform "the tasks identified in the [SOW]," and provided that this experience was required to have been gained within the last 3 years. RFP amendment 1, Section L.1(c)(1). On June 8, proposals were received from 19 offerors. Following an evaluation by the technical evaluation panel (TEP), competitive ranges were established for each geographic area. D&A was included in the competitive range for each of the five areas. On July 1, oral discussions were conducted with D&A. The protester was also provided with the following pertinent, written questions under the heading "Technical Concerns": 1. We realize that [D&A] is a newly form[ed] company. Please provide assurance that the company has the capacity and financial ability to perform the contract. . . . . . 4. It is our concern that the costs reflect the understanding of the solicitation and tasks that will be required by the contractor. Please provide a breakdown of costs supporting your proposed fees to assure that adequate resources will be dedicated to the contract(s). Agency Report, Exh. 8, attachment. D&A submitted a revised proposal on July 8. Upon evaluation of all revised proposals, the contracting officer (CO) made a second competitive range determination on August 14. The top five ranked proposals had technical scores ranging from 100 to 117; D&A's proposal, ranked sixth, had a final score of 78. D&A was not included in the final competitive range, which was limited to two offerors who were considered to have submitted the most highly rated proposals for all five areas considering technical merit and price.