Clean Service Company, Inc., B-281141.3, February 16, 1999

B-281141.3 Feb 16, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of a proposal from the competitive range is proper based on significant informational deficiencies. Which was denied. Was almost double the allowed length of 20 pages. It characterizes the submission of the SHP as a "clerical error" and argues that the SHP was clearly labeled an "attachment. L.14.5 and that counting the pages of such attachments as part of the permitted 20 pages is unreasonable and inconsistent with the requirements. Our standard for reviewing the evaluation of proposals and the determination whether to exclude a proposal from the competitive range is based on reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of the solicitation. Or is otherwise unable to demonstrate the merit of its proposal within the established limits. View Decision Matter of: Clean Service Company, Inc. File: B-281141.3 Date: February 16, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Clean Service Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Action Service Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF57-98-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for cooking waste removal at Fort Lewis, Washington. Clean Service argues that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, by ignoring all pages in excess of a page limitation established by the RFP. We deny the protest. On June 22, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed price contract for a 1-year base period, with three 1-year option periods for cleaning, disposal, and removal of waste cooking grease, grease trap, and oil/water separator and dewater digester sludge at Fort Lewis, Wash. The RFP Sec. M.1.1.1 advised offerors that evaluators would use the criteria of section L to determine the merit of proposals; Sec. M.2.1 advised offerors that the agency intended to make award to the best overall proposal, considering three factors, as follows: technical (quality); past performance; and price. Technical (quality) included three subfactors, as follows: equipment and management work plan that complied with the work requirement (including a requirement for a safety and health plan, (SHP)); specialized experience; and quality control plan. RFP Sec. M.2.3. Technical (quality) and past performance would be more important than price in the agency's selection decision. /1/ Section L.14, the instructions for preparing proposals, indicated that, apart from the cover sheet, technical proposals should contain no reference to the offeror's name and should use generic terms such as "our company" and "our office," etc. It required the submission of five copies, each numbered for control purposes, in three parts. Part I would be the executed RFP, including the representations and certifications; part II would contain price information, entered in section B of the RFP. RFP Sec. L.14.3, L.14.4. Section L.14.5 stated as follows: Part III: Technical Proposal. The offeror shall submit a technical proposal that completely addresses all evaluation areas, specifically identifying how each proposed contractual requirement shall be satisfied. The technical proposal shall include: an Equipment and Management Work Plan; Specialized Experience; and a Quality Control Plan. Limit pages to a maximum of ten printed front and back (20 printed pages). The total shall include all attachments . . . . The agency received and referred to evaluators three proposals, which came from the protester, from the eventual awardee, and from a third firm, Calixto. As a result of the evaluation, the agency rated the protester's proposal as excellent, with 406 of a possible 500 points; Calixto's proposal as satisfactory (374 points); and Action's proposal as susceptible of being made acceptable (336 points). /2/ Evaluators noted "[a] very thorough safety plan" as a strength of the protester's proposal. Contract Review Board Memorandum at 7. Although Action had offered a lower price, the agency selected the protester for award based on its technical score (highest) and price (second low). Action filed a size status protest, which was denied, and a protest with the agency; in responding to the protest, agency counsel noted that Clean Service's technical proposal, at 38 pages, was almost double the allowed length of 20 pages. Evaluators then reevaluated the protester's proposal, considering only the first 20 pages permitted by the solicitation. Evaluators found that the excess pages, eliminated from consideration, contained information necessary to demonstrate the acceptability of Clean Service's proposal, including all information on the quality control subfactor. As a result, evaluators reduced the protester's technical score by a total of 233 points, down to a total of 173 points. /3/ Based on this reevaluation, the agency found Clean Service's proposal technically unacceptable and, by letter of October 15, eliminated it from the competitive range.