Gemini Industries, Inc., B-281323, January 25, 1999

B-281323 Jan 25, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A-76 cost comparison against undisclosed government staffing estimate was inconsistent with objective of obtaining performance at the lowest cost is denied. Where the RFP notifies offerors that staffing is an area of evaluation and evaluation takes into account unique features of offeror's proposal. Gemini argues that the evaluation method used by DCA was improper. The RFP was issued as part of a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. Offerors were required to include in their technical proposal "a brief description and discussion" of their "[c]omprehension of work requirements. " which was to "include. Offerors were required to provide a "mix of disciplines proposed under each" of several listed PWS work functions "to indicate adequate staffing and manhours. View Decision Matter of: Gemini Industries, Inc. File: B-281323 Date: January 25, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Gemini Industries, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. DECA01-98-R-0007, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DCA) for receiving/storage/holding area, shelf stocking, and custodial services for the commissary at Fort Drum, New York. Gemini argues that the evaluation method used by DCA was improper, and that the agency evaluated its proposal against unstated criteria. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as part of a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, to determine whether it would be more economical to accomplish the work in-house using government employees, or by contract. The RFP provided, at section M.2, that proposals would be evaluated for price and price realism, and against the following nonprice related factors: (1) past performance; (2) adequate staffing and staff-hours for the shelf stocking function; (3) adequate staffing and staff-hours for the custodial function including, as applicable, the meat market processing, preparation and wrapping area, the receiving/storage/holding areas, the backup freeze/chill storage areas, dairy display cases, produce processing/storage areas and display cases; (4) adequate staffing and staff-hours for the receiving/storage/holding function; and (5) adequate project manager supervisory staff-hours for all services. The solicitation included a performance work statement (PWS) which detailed the work to be performed. Offerors were required to include in their technical proposal "a brief description and discussion" of their "[c]omprehension of work requirements," which was to "include, as a minimum, a 'demonstration' of understanding of the scope of work required for each area of operation contained in the [PWS]." RFP Sec. L.20(b)(2). /1/ In addition, offerors were required to provide a "mix of disciplines proposed under each" of several listed PWS work functions "to indicate adequate staffing and manhours," and to propose project manager/supervisory hours, allocated to each PWS work function. RFP Sec. L.20(b)(2)(A). Likewise, offerors were required to propose a unit price for each category of services. RFP Sec. B. The RFP provided for the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer to be selected for comparison with the government's cost estimate for in-house performance. RFP Sec. M.4(b). [Deleted] offerors responded to the solicitation. The agency evaluated the proposed staffing and staff-hours against a government standard that had been developed for the Fort Drum commissary. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. Gemini's proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable, in part, because the evaluators found it did not include sufficient personnel to perform many of the required tasks. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Specifically, Gemini proposed approximately [deleted] percent fewer hours than the government estimate for receiving/holding/ storage area services; approximately [deleted] percent fewer hours for the day shelf stocking services; approximately [deleted] to [deleted] percent fewer hours for the night custodial services; approximately [deleted] percent fewer hours for the day custodial services; approximately [deleted] percent fewer hours for the meat department custodial services; and approximately [deleted] percent fewer hours for the nonworking supervisory functions. (In total, Gemini's proposal was evaluated as offering 30,296 hours, [deleted] to [deleted] percent lower than the government estimate of [deleted] to [deleted] hours. /2/) Contracting Officer's Statement at 2-3. In addition, the evaluators found that Gemini's proposal did not include an adequate discussion of Gemini's methodology for performing the contract; the evaluators determined that Gemini had failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the tasks required under the PWS.