Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3,

Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3, BNUMBER: B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3 DATE: October 6, 1998 TITLE: Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3, October 6, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Cobra Technologies, Inc. File:B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3 Date:October 6, 1998 Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and John P. Walsh, Esq., Pompan, Murray, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester. Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, for HAI-WW, LLC, an intervenor. Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contracting agency reasonably rated awardee--a new joint venture--very high on corporate experience where: (1) request for proposals stated that corporate experience would measure the collective experience of an offeror's proposed project team and that prior performance by company officers and predecessor companies would be considered; (2) the two companies that formed the joint venture had previously successfully performed together the same type of work under separate contracts for the contracting agency at one of the four government buildings that is the subject of the present contract; and (3) all of the awardee's proposed employees have had significant relevant experience. 2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals and alleging that agency failed to consider revisions contained in protester's best and final offer and to upgrade protester's score based upon revisions is denied, where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and that evaluators were aware of protester's revisions and, as a result, upgraded protester's score based upon some revisions but not for others; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation provides no basis to find the evaluation unreasonable. 3. Agency properly awarded contract to the offeror of the higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal where the request for proposals stated that technical merit and price would be given equal weight and the agency reasonably determined that the extra technical merit of the awardee's proposal justified its higher price. (Awardee's proposal was rated [deleted] percent higher than protester's on technical merit, and awardee's proposed price was only [deleted] percent higher than protester's.) DECISION Cobra Technologies, Inc. (Cobra) protests the award of a contract to HAI-WW, LLC (HAI-WW) by the General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-03P-98-QAC-0003. Cobra contends that the evaluation of proposals was flawed and that the agency did not consider Cobra's lower proposed price in selecting HAI-WW's proposal for award. We deny the protest. Issued on April 8, 1998, the RFP solicited offers for providing facilities engineering, repairs and building maintenance services at four buildings in Baltimore, Maryland. The contractor would provide all management, supervision, manpower, materials, supplies and equipment; the contractor would plan, schedule, coordinate and assure effective performance of all services. RFP sec. B.1. The RFP contemplated a fixed-price contract for a basic period of 1 year and included options for 4 additional multi-year periods.[1] RFP sec. B. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal offered the greatest value to the government and that price and technical merit would be given approximately equal weight in determining greatest value. RFP sec. M.1. The RFP stated that technical merit would be measured in terms of a level of confidence (LOC) rating reflecting how confident the agency was that the offeror would be fully successful in furnishing the required services after evaluation of technical proposals on three criteria, listed in descending order of importance as: management plan, corporate experience, and qualifications of key personnel. RFP sec. M.1, M.3. Six offerors submitted initial proposals. The source selection panel (SSP) members individually evaluated each technical proposal; then, the SSP met as a group and gave each technical proposal a consensus LOC (i.e., technical) rating. HAI-WW's initial proposal was rated the highest on technical merit, with a score of [deleted] out of a possible [deleted] points for a "very high" rating, while Cobra's initial technical proposal was rated second-highest, with a score of [deleted] points for a "low" rating.