Andrulis Corporation, B-281002.2, June 2, 1999

B-281002.2 Jun 02, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal is denied where the only evidence of an unreasonable evaluation is that the protester's proposal received a lower technical score under a revised evaluation methodology than how it was originally scored. Was to obtain a contractor to provide non-personal test planning and report services for the West Desert Test Center and the Joint Chemical and Biological Contact Point and Test Office. Which factors were significantly more important than the equally weighted quality assurance program. A list of discrete evaluation elements called definers were listed. A number of proposals were submitted. Westar's evaluated price was $9. View Decision Matter of: Andrulis Corporation File: B-281002.2 Date: June 2, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Andrulis Corporation protests the award of a contract to Westar Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD07-98-R-0103, a total small business set-aside, issued by the United States Army, Aberdeen Acquisition Center, White Sands Missile Branch, New Mexico, for test planning and reporting services. Andrulis contends that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued February 27, 1998, was to obtain a contractor to provide non-personal test planning and report services for the West Desert Test Center and the Joint Chemical and Biological Contact Point and Test Office, at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. RFP Sec. C.2. The RFP contemplated a fixed rate time and materials contract for a 3-year base period with two 2-year option periods. RFP Secs. B.1, F.4. The services included planning, conducting, and reporting on chemical and biological defense tests; reports on developmental tests for the Commander in Chiefs; tests to assess the military value of chemical defense systems and related operational concepts; and tests to evaluate aerial dissemination systems, smoke munitions, and chemical~biological detection~protection devices. RFP Secs. C-3, C-4; Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The RFP consolidates two existing service contracts. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The RFP contemplated a best-value award considering scored merit factors (technical and management), non-scored merit factors (quality assurance program and past performance), and probable costs. RFP Secs. M.1, M-3. The RFP assigned equal weight to the technical and management scored merit factors, which factors were significantly more important than the equally weighted quality assurance program, past performance and cost factors. RFP Sec. M.3.D. Under the technical factor, the RFP identified "demonstrated approach to meeting the requirements" worth 35 points and "utilization of technical personnel and other resources" worth 15 points as subfactors. RFP Sec. M.4.A.; Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. The management factor specified experience worth 30 points, organization worth 10 points, and administration worth 10 points as subfactors. RFP Sec. M.4.B; Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. Under each subfactor, a list of discrete evaluation elements called definers were listed. RFP Sec. M.4. A number of proposals were submitted, including Westar's and Andrulis'. On August 31, the Army awarded a contract to Westar under this RFP. Westar's evaluated price was $9,725,888 and its point score was 94 points. Andrulis' slightly higher evaluated priced proposal received a point score of 87 points. Protest at 5; Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; Agency Report, First Evaluation Documents, at 1. On September 8, Andrulis protested the award to Westar, arguing among other things that the proposals were misevaluated. In response, the Army advised our Office that it would reevaluate proposals and make a new award selection. Letter from Agency Counsel to GAO (Sept. 22, 1998). Since this was the remedy that the protester requested, we dismissed the protest as academic. Andrulis Corp., B-281002, Sept. 23, 1998. As a result of the protest, the Army concluded that the proposal evaluation board (PEB) did not adhere to the evaluation methodology, as stated in the RFP and the source selection plan, in evaluating and assigning the point scores to the proposals. See Agency Report, Tab 31, Addendum to Source Selection Decision, at 1. The agency reached the conclusion that it lacked a proper basis to assign the point scores to the respective proposals because there was no evidence that the PEB considered or evaluated the proposals against the various definers listed under the evaluation subfactors. Agency Response to Protest Comments, Apr. 27, 1999, at 2; see Agency Report, First Evaluation Documents. Therefore, the Army revised the evaluation methodology to measure the relative merits of each proposal specifically in relation to the definers listed under each of the major subfactors.