Spectrum Sciences & Software, B-280700, November 9, 1998

B-280700 Nov 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of proposal from the competitive range is improper where the determination to exclude the proposal was based upon an admitted defective evaluation and it is not possible to determine that the proposal without the defective evaluation would not have been among the most highly rated proposals. The RFP was issued on February 6. Technical acceptability was to be measured under the following criteria: Acknowledgement and Understanding of Contract Requirements. Were received in response to the RFP. Were susceptible to being made technically acceptable. /2/ Technical Evaluation Summary at 1-2. The TET also determined that the next three highest-priced proposals "could have been susceptible to being made technically acceptable with major proposal revisions. View Decision Matter of: Spectrum Sciences & Software File: B-280700 Date: November 9, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F02604-98-R-0001, a total small business set-aside, issued by the Department of Air Force, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, for operation and maintenance of Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field and Barry M. Goldwater Range Complex. Spectrum contends that the Air Force improperly evaluated its proposal, which resulted in its elimination from the competitive range. We sustain the protest. The RFP was issued on February 6, 1998, to obtain operations and maintenance services under a fixed-price contract for a 12-month base period with four 12-month options. The services to be performed at Gila Bend field and Goldwater range complex include range operations, civil engineering, fire protection, security forces, logistics, lodging, air traffic control, meteorological, custodial, trash and refuse collection, environmental engineering, and range maintenance and communication-electronics. RFP, Performance Work Statement Sec. 1.1. The RFP provided for the award to "be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors." RFP Sec. M-999(a). Technical acceptability was to be measured under the following criteria: Acknowledgement and Understanding of Contract Requirements, Past Performance History and Experience with Government Contracts of this Type and Magnitude, Contract Management, Management Plans and Programs, and Subcontracting Plan. RFP Sec. M-16C(a)(i). Nine proposals, including Spectrum's, were received in response to the RFP. [DELETED]. A 21-member technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the proposals using an adjectival rating scale. /1/ The TET determined the five lowest-priced proposals, including Spectrum's, were susceptible to being made technically acceptable. /2/ Technical Evaluation Summary at 1-2. The TET also determined that the next three highest-priced proposals "could have been susceptible to being made technically acceptable with major proposal revisions," such that their prices would become even higher, and that the remaining proposal was unacceptable, and that all of these proposals were outside of the competitive range. Id. at 2. Before making a competitive range determination, the Air Force conducted exchanges with the two [DELETED] offerors, including Spectrum because they "had a lot of" clarification requests (CR) and deficiency requests (DR), [DELETED]. /3/ Id. Each of these offerors was sent a list of clarification requests (CR) and deficiency requests (DR) related to their technical proposals. Spectrum received 28 CRs and 9 DRs. In evaluating these responses, the Air Force determined that Spectrum answered only 20 of the CRs and 3 of the DRs "well enough to demonstrate understanding." Id. The agency found: Manning shortages in the range tracking, security forces and fire department functions are recurring areas of concern for the Air Force. In their clarifications, Spectrum maintained the contention that they were staffed well enough. However, Air Force technical experts are able to demonstrate where manning is deficient when they account for scheduled and unscheduled leaves, travel times to the manned ranges, and protection of aircraft on the ramp. At no point in the clarifications did the offeror acknowledge the possible need to increase manning or allude to the resulting price adjustments an increase would necessitate. Id. The record further shows that other areas of concern with regard to Spectrum's proposal included its staffing for vehicle maintenance and its trash disposal approach. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Spectrum's proposal was thus determined to be technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range on July 15. Id. at 1. The [DELETED] proposal was similarly found unacceptable after the exchanges and excluded from the competitive range.