Matrix General, Inc., B-282192, June 10, 1999

B-282192 Jun 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range is unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that. The proposal was not among the most highly-rated. 2. Protest of agency's failure to allow adequate time for offerors to respond to solicitation amendment is untimely where allegation initially was raised in agency-level protest and subsequent protest to General Accounting Office was not filed within 10 days after closing date for receipt of proposals. The RFP was issued on December 23. The RFP stated that the agency would determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass/fail basis and that an offer is acceptable when it manifests the offeror's assent. The RFP provided that an offeror's capability assessment was significantly more important than its price. View Decision Matter of: Matrix General, Inc. File: B-282192 Date: June 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Matrix General, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and the subsequent award of a contract to Rockford Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1443RP991099902, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) for the design, furnishing, and installation of a complete underground fuel storage and distribution system at Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on December 23, 1998, and, as amended, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to design, furnish and install a complete underground fuel storage and distribution system to replace the existing fuel system. RFP attach. I, at 1. The requirement also included the removal of the existing fuel storage and distribution system and preparation of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) and Facility Response Plans for the new system. Id. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose offer represents the best value to the government on the basis of (1) the merits of the offer and (2) the offeror's capability. RFP Sec. M.1. The RFP stated that the agency would determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass/fail basis and that an offer is acceptable when it manifests the offeror's assent, without exception, to the terms and conditions of the RFP. RFP Sec. M.2.a. Under capability of the offeror, the RFP provided that the government would assess the capability of each offeror on the basis of (1) its organizational experience, (2) its organizational past performance, (3) qualifications and experience of key personnel, and (4) its demonstrated ability to comply with instructions. RFP Sec. M.3. The RFP also stated that the agency would not assess capability on a pass/fail basis, but would use its assessments of capability as a basis for comparing offerors to determine best value. Id. The RFP provided that an offeror's capability assessment was significantly more important than its price. RFP Sec. M.4.1. The RFP further stated that in order to select the winning offeror, the government would rank the offers from best to worst by making a series of paired comparisons among them, trading off the marginal differences in capability and price between the members of each pair. RFP Sec. M.5. The original closing date for receipt of proposals was January 25, 1999. All vendors on the agency mailing list were notified by telephone during the week of January 18, 1999, that an amendment would be issued extending the proposal due date and clarifying information contained in the RFP. Contracting Officer Statement at 1. Amendment No. 0001 was issued on January 26 which provided responses to clarification requests and changed the closing date to February 2. Ten proposals were received by the February 2 closing time. The technical proposals were evaluated by the technical evaluation panel (TEP) and a competitive range of three proposals was established. Discussions were held with the competitive range offerors and final proposal revisions were received and evaluated. After final proposal evaluation, the Rockford Corporation's proposal was determined to be the best value based upon a minimal difference in technical capability but a substantial cost savings compared to the other two competitive range offerors. On February 23, 1999, award was made to Rockford in the amount of $141,000 for the design and response plan preparation phases of the contract. Once the design and response plans have been approved by the NPS and the State of Alaska, the construction and demolition phases will be added to the contract by modification in the amount of $1,650,000. Legal Memorandum at 1.