Columbia Research Corporation, B-284157, February 28, 2000

B-284157 Feb 28, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly eliminated protester's proposal from competitive range is sustained where record shows that protester's proposal was broadly comparable to the competitive range proposals from a technical standpoint. Section M of the RFP stated: Proposals will be evaluated for the degree of understanding demonstrated. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of successful performance within each factor. The factors for evaluation are as follows: Technical Factors Factor 1.0 . 4 were considered equal and each was significantly more important than factor 3. Factors 1 and 2 were equal. The technical and management factors together were considered significantly more important than cost. View Decision Matter of: Columbia Research Corporation File: B-284157 Date: February 28, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Columbia Research Corporation (CRC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-99-R-0002, issued by the Coastal Systems Station, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for technical and specialty engineering support services for Naval Special Warfare development and acquisition programs and life cycle sustainment management for various Navy systems. CRC asserts that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from the competitive range. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-quantity contract for 5 years. RFP at 50. The RFP required offerors to submit technical, management and cost proposal volumes, RFP Sec. L.1.1(a), and contained detailed instructions on the type, comprehensiveness, and structure of the information to be contained in each volume. RFP Sec. L, at 38-48. Section M of the RFP stated: Proposals will be evaluated for the degree of understanding demonstrated, the technical excellence or lack thereof within the factors, and the level of competence proposed within each factor where appropriate. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of successful performance within each factor. The factors for evaluation are as follows: Technical Factors Factor 1.0 -- Quantity and Quality of Technical Personnel Factor 2.0 -- Understanding of the Requirement and Technical Approach to Supporting the [Statement of Work] Functional Task Areas Factor 3.0 -- Sample Problems Factor 4.0 -- Past Performance and Sample Products Management Factors Factor 1.0 -- Management/Admin Organization Factor 2.0 -- Current Manning and Peak Load Capability, Facilities, Phase-in Plan, and Subcontracting plan RFP Sec. M.1.0, Evaluation of Volumes I and II -- Technical and Management Proposals. In the technical area, factors 1, 2, and 4 were considered equal and each was significantly more important than factor 3; within the management area, factors 1 and 2 were equal. The technical and management factors together were considered significantly more important than cost; the technical factors were four times more important than the management factors. RFP Sec. M.1.0. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. RFP Sec. M.3.0, at 53. Four proposals were received. Members of a technical evaluation review panel (TERP) evaluated the initial proposals by assigning each an adjectival (unacceptable, acceptable, excellent, or outstanding) and risk (low, moderate, or high) rating under each technical and management factor. Each TERP member also provided narrative explanations for the ratings given. The TERP chairperson then first converted the adjectival and risk ratings to numerical ratings in accordance with a predetermined formula to arrive at a total technical score, and then calculated a total normalized numerical rating for each proposal. The cost proposals then were subjected to a cost realism analysis. The following table shows the results of the technical evaluation and evaluated costs for the four proposals the agency received: Offeror Raw/Normalized Evaluated Tech. Scores Cost C 86.9/100 $21,938,257 D 73.5/85 20,047,448 CRC 68.2/78 18,044,218 B 46.3/53 18,297,915 Agency Report (AR ), exh. O, Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, Oct. 20, 1999, at 7. The TERP chairperson prepared a consolidated report based on the results of the evaluation and forwarded it to a contract award review person (CARP). The TERP report contained the average adjectival and risk ratings calculated under each factor for all proposals, as well as the evaluators' narrative comments in support of the assigned ratings. Based on his review of the TERP reports, the CARP recommended to the contract specialist that only the proposals of offerors C and D be retained in the competitive range. AR, exh. J, CARP Report, Oct. 14, 1999, at 1.