LB&B Associates, Inc., B-281706, March 24, 1999

B-281706 Mar 24, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's argument that it should have received higher past performance score than awardee under solicitation calling for work in a "hot" laboratory. A laboratory in which live viruses are present. Is denied. Where record demonstrates that awardee does in fact have experience working in a "hot" laboratory. 2. Discussions were meaningful where they led the protester into the area of its proposal that required revision. Including the Russell Research Center (where research focusing on ensuring and improving the safety and quality of food and feed is conducted). The Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (where research on emerging and exotic infectious poultry diseases and food-borne pathogens is conducted). View Decision Matter of: LB&B Associates, Inc. File: B-281706 Date: March 24, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION LB&B Associates, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. (FSE) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 3-3K06-98, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), for operations and maintenance support services for ARS's South Atlantic Area facilities. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated its proposal and misled it during discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought offers for the performance of operations, maintenance, and support services at ARS research facilities located in the Athens, Georgia area, including the Russell Research Center (where research focusing on ensuring and improving the safety and quality of food and feed is conducted); the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (where research on emerging and exotic infectious poultry diseases and food-borne pathogens is conducted); and the J. Phil Campbell, Sr., Natural Resource Center (where research focusing on the southern Piedmont agricultural ecosystem is conducted). Services to be provided include buildings and grounds maintenance; repair and maintenance of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical systems; and housekeeping. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for the routine tasks, with additional work to be performed under a time-and-materials, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity line item. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with technical merit of greater importance than price in the determination. RFP Sec. M.3. In the event that offerors were considered essentially equal in terms of technical competence, the government reserved the right to award to the offeror with the lowest realistic price. Id. Section M.2 of the RFP identified the following evaluation factors (and subfactors), along with their respective point values: Evaluation Criteria Value 1. Past Performance 60 a. Demonstrated Success in Laboratory 25 b. Customer Satisfaction 20 c. Proposed Management 15 2. Innovativeness 20 a. Staffing 8 b. Performance 7 c. Cost avoidance/Cost reduction 5 3. Personnel/Management 10 a. Corporate and Management Contro l4 b. Utilization of Automated System 3 c. Employee Training 2 d. Subcontracting 1 4. Technical Understanding 10 a. Biocontainment Knowledge 5 b. Performance Based Knowledge 3 c. Quality Control 2 Offerors were instructed to address the first evaluation factor, past performance, in a written business proposal and the other three in an oral presentation to the source evaluation board (SEB). RFP Sec. L.6. Eleven offerors submitted business and price proposals by the July 23, 1998 closing date; 10 offerors made oral presentations during the week of August 31 to September 4. /1/ At the conclusion of the oral presentations, the evaluators assigned technical scores; LB&B and FSE tied for the highest score of 86 of 100 available points. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Both received 53 (of a possible 60) points under the past performance criterion and 9 (of a possible 10) points under the technical understanding factor; under the innovativeness factor, LB&B received a score 1 point higher than FSE's (16 vs. 15, of a possible 20), whereas under the Personnel/Management factor, FSE received a score 1 point higher than LB&B's (9 vs. 8, of a possible 10). Technical Evaluation Consensus Scoring Sheets, LB&B and FSE. LB&B's and FSE's proposals were included in the competitive range, along with those of the next three highest scoring offerors. /2/ Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Discussion questions were forwarded to each of the competitive range offerors on October 13, with revised proposals due by October 27. After reviewing the revised proposals and determining that neither LB&B's nor FSE's technical scores should be changed, the SEB determined that FSE's offer, which was technically equivalent to, but lower in price than, LB&B's, represented the best value to the government. /3/ Id.