Pacifica Services, Inc., B-280921, December 7, 1998

B-280921 Dec 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contracting agency's rejection of protester's proposal as technically unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria where the record shows the agency reasonably determined that the proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's requirement to demonstrate that its proposed staffing represented an adequate number and appropriate allocation of qualified employees and job categories for each task. Since offerors were on notice the agency might award the contract without conducting discussions. The agency's decision to do so under the circumstances here is unobjectionable. The only offeror whose proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable. View Decision Matter of: Pacifica Services, Inc. File: B-280921 Date: December 7, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pacifica Services, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. F06493-98-R-0031, issued by the Department of the Air Force to obtain civil engineering services at the Los Angeles Air Force Base and its military family housing annexes. Pacifica contends that the Air Force improperly evaluated its technical proposal and improperly failed to conduct discussions with the firm prior to awarding the contract to TrendTec, the only offeror whose proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable. We deny the protest. The solicitation sought the services of a firm to perform a broad range of maintenance, repair, and minor construction work on real property at the Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, California; the Lawndale Annex in Hawthorne, California; and the Fort MacArthur Military Family Housing Annexes in San Pedro, California. RFP Sec. L-II-1.0.a. In addition to performing maintenance, repair, and minor construction work, the successful contractor was responsible for such disparate base civil engineering functions as management information systems, real property management, engineer services, contract planning and programming, drafting and record drawing maintenance, design and construction management, and management of the base's simplified acquisition of base engineering requirements (SABER) contract. Performance Work Statement (PWS), RFP Sec. C-5, Para. 5.5-5.11. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, award fee contract to a firm to perform these services for 1 base year, with up to 4 option years available. RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP Sec. F(1). Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. RFP Sec. M.1. Pass/fail ratings were to be assigned under the solicitation's non-price evaluation factors. RFP Sec. M.2.b. Since the government reserved the right to award without discussions, offerors were cautioned that their initial offers should include their best price and terms. RFP Sec. M.2. Section L-II-2.3. of the RFP cautioned offerors that their proposals shall be: clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The sole proposal volume at issue here is the leadership/technical volume. /1/ With respect to this volume, offerors were required to "provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology" they would use for accomplishing the PWS. RFP Sec. L-II-4.1. They were also required to demonstrate their ability to "plan, organize, and manage resources in a coordinated and timely manner such that the performance requirements will be achieved, costs will be controlled, and schedules will be met. The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the processes and efforts required to satisfy the requirements. Leadership/technical proposals must provide a complete and acceptable response to [the instructions in section L-II of the RFP]." /2/ RFP Sec. M.3. All of the non-price evaluation factors were drawn from the leadership/technical volume: leadership/technical, sample problems/scenario, quality control, and past performance. RFP Sec. L-II-4.2. The sole factor at issue here is leadership/technical. Section M.4 of the RFP set forth five leadership/technical subfactors: management approach, organizational structure, staffing, key personnel qualifications, and start-up plan. The Air Force received and reviewed proposals from four offerors, including Pacifica (the incumbent contractor's principal subcontractor) and TrendTec.