ENMAX Corporation, B-281965, May 12, 1999

B-281965 May 12, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that the awardee's proposal was improperly considered technically acceptable is sustained where the record shows that the solicitation required offerors to address all of the identified areas within each technical evaluation factor. Where there is no evidence in the record that the agency evaluators either recognized the failure of the proposal to address these areas. Or concluded that the proposal was acceptable overall despite the omission of these areas. 2. Protester's contention that the evaluation of performance risk was flawed because the awardee's prior experience is not relevant to the solicited effort is denied where the record shows that the solicitation anticipated reviewing a broader level of prior experience than the solicited effort. View Decision Matter of: ENMAX Corporation File: B-281965 Date: May 12, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ENMAX Corporation protests the award of a contract to Carlisle Research, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. F19628-98-R-0445, issued by the Department of the Air Force for engineering services in support of the software development activities of the Materiel Systems Group at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. ENMAX argues that the Air Force evaluation of Carlisle's proposal was improper in three areas--the conclusion that the proposal was technically acceptable, the decision that the proposal presented low performance risk, and the review of Carlisle's proposed compensation rates. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on September 21, 1998, and limited the competition to participants in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) small disadvantaged business program, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994). The RFP contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed-price labor-hour contract /1/ with a term of 5 years. RFP Secs. B.A., F.A. The work was priced using on-site and off-site labor rates. The RFP's evaluation scheme, described in greater detail below, advised that award would be made using a performance/price tradeoff, which "permits tradeoffs between price/cost and the past performance evaluation for technically acceptable proposals." RFP amend. 0002, Sec. M.A.8. Under the RFP's evaluation scheme, proposals were first reviewed for technical acceptability under three evaluation factors: (1) management of multi-disciplinary teams in an information technology environment; (2) sustainment/maintenance in an SEI/CMM /2/ environment; and (3) enhancement/modernization in an SEI/CMM environment. RFP amend. 0002, Sec. M.B.2. Each of these factors was followed by a narrative description of the scope of the factor, which the evaluators transformed into a [deleted] checklist; each item on the checklist was graded on a pass/fail basis. Evaluation Plan, Oct. 15, 1998, at 11. Proposals found to be technically acceptable were next evaluated for performance risk, using ratings of low, moderate, or high. RFP amend. 0002, Sec. M.B.3.b. In addition, the Air Force evaluated each offeror's price. The RFP advised that past performance and price would be equally important, with award to the offeror whose proposal presented the best combination of performance risk and evaluated price. Id. Sec. M.A.8. After receiving and reviewing eight proposals, the Air Force concluded that [deleted] of them, including those submitted by ENMAX and Carlisle, were technically acceptable. The agency next concluded that [deleted] of the acceptable proposals (again including those submitted by ENMAX and Carlisle), presented low performance risk based on the past performance review. Of the [deleted] technically acceptable, low-risk proposals, Carlisle had the lowest evaluated price [deleted] followed by ENMAX [deleted]. Based on this information, the agency selected Carlisle for award. Memo for Record, Feb. 10, 1999, at 3. DISCUSSION In its challenges to the Air Force's evaluation of Carlisle's proposal, ENMAX focuses on whether Carlisle has gained sufficient technical expertise and relevant past performance from its prior contract experience. Carlisle's predominant experience has been in providing support for the [deleted]. Carlisle Technical Proposal, Oct. 29, 1998, at 2. Among other things, Carlisle maintained and administered the [deleted] Wide Area Network (WAN), and the Air Force explains that Carlisle "has successfully supported this system at all engineering levels and project management levels." Air Force Reply to ENMAX Protest, Agency Report, Tab 2, attach. 11, at 5. Technical Acceptability of Carlisle's Proposal ENMAX contends that Carlisle's proposal did not meet the minimum technical requirements set forth in the RFP, and that the Air Force improperly concluded that the proposal was technically acceptable.