Red Road Inc., B-283713.2, March 14, 2000

B-283713.2 Mar 14, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was reasonable where the record supports the agency's determination that the protester's proposal failed in many instances to include information specifically requested by the solicitation and necessary for evaluation purposes. Red Road contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. Was the lowest-priced proposal received. Its proposal would have been selected for award. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. We will not reevaluate technical proposals. Instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. View Decision Matter of: Red Road Inc. File: B-283713.2 Date: March 14, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Red Road Inc. protests the award of a contract to Quigley Bros. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R1-17-99-30, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for certain watershed improvements in the Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho. Red Road contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the government under the following evaluation criteria: past performance; production schedule; experience and qualifications of the firm, supervisor, and employees; equipment available; and price. RFP at 65, 70. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without conducting discussions, and thus offerors should include their best terms from a price and technical standpoint in their initial proposals. RFP at 70. The agency received six proposals, including Quigley's and Red Road's, by the RFP closing date. The agency evaluated the proposals received, selected the proposal submitted by Quigley as representing the best value to the government, and awarded the contract to that firm. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. The agency, in response to a protest filed with our Office by Red Road, convened a new technical proposal evaluation panel (TPEP), and again evaluated the proposals. /1/ Id.; Agency Report, Tab 6, Letter from the Contracting Officer to Selected Members of the Second TPEP (Oct. 22, 1999). Quigley's proposal received the second highest technical rating of the proposals received with the second lowest price of $99,370. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3; Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Documents, at 4. Red Road's proposal, at $98,574, was the lowest-priced proposal received, but also received the lowest technical rating of any of the proposals. The agency again determined that Quigley's proposal represented the best value to the government, and notified the disappointed offerors that the agency's previous award to Quigley would not be rescinded. Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Documents, at 4, and Tab 2B, Letter from Contracting Officer to Red Lion (Nov. 29, 1999). Red Road protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal, and argues that, but for the agency's unreasonable evaluation, its proposal would have been selected for award. The protester contends that contrary to the agency's view, "[t]here should be no doubt that [Red Road] provided enough information to meet and exceed the [RFP's] Technical Proposal Instructions.'" /2/ Protester's Comments at 3. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. An offeror's mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-277208, B-277208.2, Sept. 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 94 at 4. As illustrated by the following examples, we find that the agency's evaluation is reasonable, given the evaluators' reasonable conclusions that Red Road's proposal (in contrast to that of the awardee) lacked, in many instances, any sort of the requested detail. The RFP specified, among other things, that each offeror's technical proposal "must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a detailed description of the techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objectives of the specifications/statement of work." RFP at 68.