North State Resources, Inc., B-282140, June 7, 1999

B-282140 Jun 07, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against price evaluation which was limited to evaluation of an undisclosed hypothetical task order based on line item prices furnished by offerors. Is untimely where price evaluation methodology was clear on face of solicitation. There is no general requirement for such all-inclusive comments. To the responsible firm whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. At M-3. /1/ The evaluation was to be based on the following major evaluation factors. The non-price factors together were weighted equally with price. The HTO was not disclosed in the RFP. The RFP stated that the agency would use cost or price analysis to evaluate price not only to determine whether the price was reasonable. View Decision Matter of: North State Resources, Inc. File: B-282140 Date: June 7, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION North State Resources, Inc. (NSR) protests the award of a contract to Dean Ryan Consultants & Designers, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW05-98-R-0013, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for environmental studies, evaluations and consulting work for portions of eight western states. NSR principally asserts that the agency misevaluated proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract under the section 8(a) (small disadvantaged business) program, for a base year, with 4 option years, to the responsible firm whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. RFP Sec. 4, at M-3. /1/ The evaluation was to be based on the following major evaluation factors, together with price: (1) past performance on completed projects; (2) technical capabilities of key personnel; (3) organizational experience and approach; and (4) small, small-disadvantaged, women-owned, minority business partnership compliance. RFP Sec. 8, at M-4 to M-8. The non-price factors together were weighted equally with price. RFP Sec. 4, at M-3. Concerning price, the RFP stated that the hourly rates, other direct costs, and escalation factors would be evaluated "as a whole, hypothetical task order [HTO], to reflect the actual mix of hours, other direct costs and escalation factors anticipated during the life of the contract." RFP Sec. 5, at M-3. The HTO was not disclosed in the RFP. Finally, the RFP stated that the agency would use cost or price analysis to evaluate price not only to determine whether the price was reasonable, but also to determine the offeror's understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. RFP Sec. 5, at M-3. The RFP also stated that it was possible that an award would be made after receipt of proposals, without further negotiations; therefore, it was important that all proposals be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. RFP Sec. 4, at M-3. Four offers were received from 8(a) firms. Evaluation of these offers was performed by an agency source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The individual members of the SSEB reviewed each proposal; the SSEB then discussed the proposals relative to each factor, and reached a consensus (not an average) on each proposal's technical score, strengths and weaknesses. The SSEB's overall ratings were as follows: Technical Overall Price (based on Score (300 Determination of hypothetical task Offeror Maximum) Technical Ability order) /2/ NSR 246.3 (82.0%) Very Good [d00eted] Ryan 240.1 (80.0%) Very Good 17,152 Offeror A 226.0 (75.3%) Satisfactory [deleted] Offeror B Not Scored Unsatisfactory N/A SSEB Report at 1; SSEB Best Value Comparative Analysis, Jan. 27, 1999. The SSEB found that NSR's proposal presented a strong team with considerable depth of experience. The team was especially strong with regard to cultural resources, and appeared to have good experience working in the Central Valley of California and the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. There also was a strong National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) capability as well as experience working with federal agencies, including the military. On the other hand, NSR appeared weak in the area of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation, fish and wildlife mitigation/restoration, and threatened and endangered (T&E) species issues in the Delta and Central Valley. The SSEB estimated that about 60 percent of the work would be accomplished by [deleted], and found that the division of labor and [deleted] controls were not clear. /3/ SSEB Report at 2. The SSEB found that Ryan's proposal demonstrated its ability to perform the types of work described in the solicitation. In particular, the firm had successfully performed both military and civil work directly relevant to the work required by the solicitation. The team had excellent cultural resources capability, was well located geographically and had sufficient depth to perform the tasks required.