MCR Federal, Inc., B-280969, December 14, 1998

B-280969 Dec 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of proposal evaluation and source selection under solicitation where technical factors are more important than price is sustained where the contracting officer's determination that the awardee's lower-priced proposal was technically superior to that of the protester is inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. Where the record provides insufficient contemporaneous documentation to either support agency's post-protest assertion that the proposals are technically comparable. Or show that the source selection authority ever considered whether the protester's higher rating in one area (key personnel) was worth the cost premium associated with its proposal. Award was to be made to the offerors determined to have submitted the proposals most advantageous (in terms of offering the best value) to the government. View Decision Matter of: MCR Federal, Inc. File: B-280969 Date: December 14, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION MCR Federal, Inc. protests the award of contracts to KPMG Peat Marwick, (KPMG) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA220-98-R-0004, issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for contract reconciliation services. /1/ MCR challenges the agency's source selection decision as inconsistent with the stated evaluation scheme for award. We sustain the protest of the award to PWC, and deny the protest of the award to KPMG. The RFP, issued February 17, 1998, contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials technical support services contracts to be performed over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. RFP Sec. B, L.9. Award was to be made to the offerors determined to have submitted the proposals most advantageous (in terms of offering the best value) to the government, considering price and other factors. RFP Sec. M.3(b). Section M of the RFP provided three criteria to be considered by the agency in its determination as to which proposals offered the best value: technical factors, past performance, and price. Section M.3(d) of the RFP provided that "[w]hen combined, all evaluation factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price." The RFP provided the following technical evaluation factors for award, listed in "descending order of importance": (1) technical approach (where the first subfactor, sample tasks, was "substantially more important" than the second subfactor, overall understanding and approach in the tasking areas); (2) key personnel; and (3) management plan. RFP Sec. M.2(a). Adjectival ratings were provided for use as "general guidance" in assessing the proposals under each technical factor, and for rating the overall technical proposal. /2/ RFP Sec. M.2(b). Past performance, identified as an additional non-cost factor for evaluation in the best value analysis, was to be considered as equal in importance to technical approach, the most important of the three stated technical evaluation factors. RFP Sec. M.7(a). Past performance evaluations were to be based on information provided by the offerors in their proposals, detailing previous or current contracts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity, as well as additional information obtained by the agency. RFP Sec. L.4(c), M.7(c). The past performance of proposed critical subcontractors was to be considered "to the extent warranted by the subcontractor's involvement in the proposed effort." RFP Sec. M.7(b). An adjectival rating was to be assigned to each proposal for past performance. /3/ RFP Sec. M.7(d). Seven initial proposals were submitted by the April 30 closing time for receipt of proposals; two proposals were found to be unacceptable and were excluded from the competitive range. By letters of June 9, the agency conducted written discussions with the remaining five offerors, including MCR, KPMG, and PWC. /4/ Each of the competitive range technical proposals had been rated "marginal" overall, and the discussion letters, tailored for each offeror, included questions about those areas of their proposals that did not satisfy RFP requirements. All offerors were also reminded during discussions about certain price-related requirements, and some of the offerors were requested to provide clarification in certain minor areas (e.g., although the firm's management plan proposal was found acceptable, MCR was requested to clarify a reconciliation approach depicted in an exhibit to that portion of the firm's technical proposal). The five competitive range proposals' evaluated prices, prior to discussions, ranged between $[deleted] and $[deleted]. Revised proposals and final proposal revisions were received and evaluated.