Century Elevator Inc., B-283822, December 20, 1999

B-283822 Dec 20, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposal is not technically acceptable. Agency was not required to consider proposal for award notwithstanding that protester proposed a lower price than the awardee. 2. Agency is not required to hold discussions to allow offeror to improve its proposal where solicitation advises offerors of the possibility of award without discussions. Century contends that its proposal should have been selected because it represented the best value to the government. Which was issued on April 12. Resources for additional personnel and services) were worth 45 points and past performance was worth 55 points. Six proposals were received by the June 4. Because it did not have staff with the expertise to evaluate the technical proposals in-house. View Decision Matter of: Century Elevator Inc. File: B-283822 Date: December 20, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Century Elevator Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Millar Elevator Services Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. JFKC01-99-R-0007, issued by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for elevator and escalator maintenance and repair. Century contends that its proposal should have been selected because it represented the best value to the government. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on April 12, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a time-and-materials portion, for a base and 4 option years. The RFP provided for the evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and price, with award to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP Secs. M.7.1, M.8.1. Technical subfactors (corporate organization/structure; recruitment of personnel--training; quality control plan; and resources for additional personnel and services) were worth 45 points and past performance was worth 55 points. RFP Secs. M.7.2.1, M.7.2.2. The RFP stated that price would be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and consistency with the offeror's proposal, but that it would "not be rated because the weight to be accorded price [could] be determined only after a determination of the relative merits of the proposal from a past performance/technical standpoint and the significance of the differences." RFP Sec. M.7.2.3. The RFP advised offerors that the government might award a contract without discussions, and that their initial proposals should therefore contain their best terms from a technical and cost or price standpoint. RFP Sec. M.8.3. Six proposals were received by the June 4, 1999 closing date. Because it did not have staff with the expertise to evaluate the technical proposals in-house, the Kennedy Center issued a purchase order for the technical evaluation of proposals to an outside firm. /1/ After reviewing the technical proposals, the evaluators determined that only two firms, Millar and Firm A (which was a firm other than Century), had demonstrated that they were "truly able to provide services that meet the John F. Kennedy Center contract standards, with [Firm A] lacking in some areas." Technical Review and Evaluation Report at 3. Millar's proposal was far more highly rated than Firm A's, receiving 100 percent of the available technical evaluation points versus 71 percent for Firm A. Id. at 6-7. Century's technical proposal received only 56 percent of the points possible, scoring 60 percent or less under all technical evaluation subfactors. Id. at 8. The evaluators noted that they considered the majority of Century's responses to the evaluation subfactors "to be marginal in terms of basic content and level of information the government seeks for evaluation purposes." Id. The contracting officer considered the results of the technical evaluation, along with past performance information and price, in determining which proposal represented the best value to the government. She determined that Millar's proposal, which had received both the highest technical score and the best overall past performance ratings, and which was only 2 percent higher in price than Firm A's, represented the best value to the government. Contract Award Memorandum Without Discussions at 9. On September 22, she awarded a contract to Millar. Century argues that it should have received the award because its proposal met or exceeded the technical requirements in the RFP and was lower priced than the awardee's. /2/ As discussed below, however, the record shows that in fact the agency found that Century's proposal, as submitted, was not technically acceptable (although it may have been susceptible of being made acceptable through discussions). As a result, the agency was not required to consider Century's proposal for award notwithstanding its lower price. ITT Fed. Servs. Corp., B-250096, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para.