GAO Report from B-283239

B-283239 Oct 06, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that it should have received the highest-possible rating under each evaluation factor and subfactor because its proposal was evaluated as having no weaknesses or deficiencies is denied because the argument is based upon an alleged deviation from an internal source selection plan rather than on information disseminated to offerors as part of the solicitation. Where there is no evidence in the record that the agency's evaluation criteria were applied unequally or unreasonably. 2. Upon consideration and denial of protester's blanket contention that its proposal should have received the highest-possible rating under each evaluation factor and subfactor. Its remaining issues are dismissed. View Decision Matter of: DTH Management JV File: B-283239 Date: October 6, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION DTH Management JV protests the award of a contract to Ameriko, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N63387-98-R-8020, issued by the Department of the Navy for maintenance and repair services for military family housing in West San Diego, California. DTH argues that the evaluation of its proposal is inconsistent with the ratings scheme set forth in the agency's source selection plan, that proposals were rated unequally, that its past performance rating was unreasonable, and that the Navy performed a flawed analysis of Ameriko's lower price. We deny the protest. The RFP for these maintenance and repair services was issued on August 11, 1998, and limited the competition to small business concerns. The RFP contemplated the award of a mixed fixed-price and indefinite-quantity contract, with a 1-year base period followed by 3 option years, to the offeror whose proposal presented the best value to the government. RFP Secs. B, L.3, M.3. To determine the best value, the RFP identified three evaluation factors (management and administration, experience, and past performance) and explained that the three factors combined were equal in weight to price. RFP Sec. M.3. In addition, the RFP identified several subfactors under each of the three technical factors, and set forth detailed instructions regarding the relative weights of the factors and subfactors. The evaluation factors and subfactors identified in the RFP were: A. Management and Administration Subfactor A1: Management Plan for Work Accomplishment Subfactor A2: Administration Plan Subfactor A3: Quality Control Subfactor A4: TQL/Partnering Plan Subfactor A5: Approach to Subcontracting B. Experience Subfactor B1: Specific Housing Maintenance Experience Subfactor B2 General Experience C. Past Performance Subfactor C1: Specific Housing Maintenance Past Performance Subfactor C2: General Past Performance Id. In addition, the RFP provided the following guidance about these factors and subfactors: Factor A is more important than Factor B, and Factor B is equal in importance to Factor C. Subfactors A1, A2, A3 and A4 are of equal importance. Subfactors A1, A2, A3 and A4 are each more important than subfactor A5. Subfactors B1 and B2 are listed in descending order of importance. Subfactors C1 and C2 are listed in descending order of importance. Id. The RFP was silent on how proposals would be evaluated under these factors and subfactors; however, the agency's source selection plan--not provided to offerors or incorporated into the RFP--anticipated that proposals would be evaluated as exceptional, very good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Source Selection Plan at 13-14. The Navy received 11 proposals in response to the RFP, and ultimately concluded that 7 of those proposals--including the one submitted by DTH--should be considered within the competitive range for award. As described above, proposals were given an adjectival rating under each factor and subfactor, and these ratings were summarized with an overall rating for each proposal. After the Navy held discussions with the seven offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range, and evaluated proposal revisions, DTH's proposal was ranked third highest technically with the highest overall price. The overall technical rating and ranking, as well as the total price and price ranking, for the competitive range offerors is set forth below: OFFEROR TECH. RATING/ PRICE TOTAL PRICE RANKING RANKING Offeror A Exceptional/1st 6th $24.2 million Offeror B Very Good/2nd 4th $23.3 million DTH Very Good/3rd 7th [deleted] Offeror C Very Good/4th 5th $24.0 million Ameriko Very Good/5th 2nd $20.6 million Offeror D Acceptable/6th 1st $20.5 million Offeror E Acceptable/7th 3rd $21.2 million Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement, Aug. 18, 1999, at 6. The agency first selected Offeror B for award, after concluding that Offeror B's proposal (with its second-highest technical rating and fourth lowest price) offered the best value to the government.