EAI Corporation, B-283541, December 6, 1999

B-283541 Dec 06, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest alleging that awardee's proposed pricing was not subjected to an adequate price analysis is denied where record reflects that the analysis was reasonable and in accordance with stated price evaluation methodology set forth in the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that one area of protester's proposal was misevaluated is denied where record reflects that protester merely disagrees with the agency evaluators. The RFP was issued on June 9. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering four evaluation factors: (1) technical (most important). Offerors were required to submit fixed prices in the form of burdened labor rates for a variety of labor positions. View Decision Matter of: EAI Corporation File: B-283541 Date: December 6, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION EAI Corporation protests the award of a contract to Battelle Memorial Institute under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-99-R-0011, issued by the Department of the Army for the provision of support services to various organizations located at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. EAI alleges that the Army failed to perform a proper price realism analysis with respect to Battelle's proposal and otherwise failed to properly evaluate its technical proposal with respect to proposed support for one of the organizations covered by the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on June 9, 1999 and closed on July 9. It contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with 4 option years against which task orders would be issued following negotiations between the agency and the contractor to provide a variety of services to the U.S. Army Chemical, Military Police and Engineer Schools, Battle Lab, the Test and Evaluation Coordination Office (TECO), the Smoke Proponency Office and the Joint Service Integration Group (JSIG). RFP Sec. C.3.a. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering four evaluation factors: (1) technical (most important); (2) managerial (second most important); (3) past performance (equal to managerial); and (4) price. With respect to technical, the RFP instructed offerors, inter alia, to demonstrate their "capability to respond to task orders within a broad scope of work covering all aspects of: Doctrine and Training Development, Training and Training Development, Force Modernization/Acquisition, Battle Lab and General Test and Evaluation Support and support to the [JSIG]." RFP Sec. L.19.1B.2.a. Offerors were required to submit fixed prices in the form of burdened labor rates for a variety of labor positions. Price proposals, which were not scored, were to be: (1) analyzed for errors, mistakes and omissions; (2) evaluated for unbalanced offers; (3) analyzed to ensure burdened prices were included; (4) evaluated by comparing proposed prices to the government estimate for the base period and option years; (5) analyzed to ensure that the pricing reflects the technical and management proposal; and (6) compared to other proposals. RFP Sec. M.5d. EAI and Battelle submitted proposals. With respect to the technical proposals, the discriminating factors in the evaluation were Battelle's excellent ratings for understanding of contract background and purpose of contract; EAI's proposal was rated good in both these areas. With respect to management proposals, the discriminating factors in the evaluation were Battelle's excellent rating for organization and management plan; EAI's proposal was rated good in this area. Four weaknesses were noted in EAI's proposal: (1) the offeror failed to address support for the Battle Lab; (2) the offeror failed to adequately address TECO support; (3) the offeror failed to adequately describe the organizational structure of its subcontractors; and (4) the offeror failed to adequately describe its own organizational structure. Battelle's proposal had no weaknesses in these areas and, as a result, was rated higher than EAI's under the technical and management factors. There were no differences in past performance ratings. Overall, the evaluators rated Battelle's proposal as "Exceptional" because it fully met the government's requirements in a way that provided exceptionally low risk, exceptional probability of success, exceptional foresight or exceptional quality. EAI's proposal was rated as "Good" because it possessed high quality in most respects with a good probability of success and generally exceeded minimum requirements although improvement was possible. Contracting Officer's Statement at Para. 3. The prices submitted by both offerors were determined to be fair and reasonable following an evaluation using each of the six price analysis techniques specified in the RFP.