Crown Support Services, Inc., B-284471, April 21, 2000

B-284471 Apr 21, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal for support services contract is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. Indicated that all technical factors combined were significantly more important than cost/price. The evaluation criteria (and their respective weights) were: plan of operation (40 points). Twelve offers were received by the June 1 closing date. Three offers were determined to be in the competitive range. Written negotiations were conducted with each competitive range offeror. Final revised offers were received from the competitive-range offerors and evaluated. Final revised offers were ranked as follows: Offeror Technical Score Total Price Raven [deleted] $2. View Decision Matter of: Crown Support Services, Inc. File: B-284471 Date: April 21, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Crown Support Services, Inc. (Crown) protests the award of a contract to Raven Services Corporation (Raven) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 273-99-P-0007, issued by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Department of Health and Human Services, for support services. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal. We deny the protest. Issued on April 16, 1999, the RFP solicited proposals for providing support services for the NIEHS at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The required services include: (1) mail; (2) messenger; (3) transportation of passengers; (4) copy, binding, and facsimile; (5) moving laboratory/office furniture and equipment; (6) conference room; and (7) maintainance of government vehicles. RFP at C4-14. The RFP contemplated award of a 1-year, fixed-price contract and included options for 4 additional years. RFP at B3, L80. The RFP stated that the award would be made on the basis of best overall value after evaluation of proposals on technical factors (which encompassed experience and past performance) and cost/price, and indicated that all technical factors combined were significantly more important than cost/price. Within the technical/past performance evaluation factor, the evaluation criteria (and their respective weights) were: plan of operation (40 points), quality assurance and safety plans (20 points), experience of contractor's corporate organization related to technical proficiency/past performance (20 points), and experience of key personnel (20 points). The RFP stated that a cost analysis would be performed and considered as part of the best value analysis. RFP at M91-93. Twelve offers were received by the June 1 closing date. After evaluation, three offers were determined to be in the competitive range; written negotiations were conducted with each competitive range offeror. Final revised offers were received from the competitive-range offerors and evaluated. Final revised offers were ranked as follows: Offeror Technical Score Total Price Raven [deleted] $2,271,218.00 Crown [deleted] $[deleted] Offeror A [deleted] $[deleted] Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 4, Source Selection Determination, at 3. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to Raven because of the superior technical merit of its proposal. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 7, Final TEP Report, at 8-9. After reviewing the TEP's report and conducting a best buy analysis, the contracting officer determined that Raven's higher technical score more than offset its higher price and that Raven's offer represented the best value. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 4, Source Selection Determination, at 1, 5-6. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to Raven on December 17. After a debriefing, Crown filed this protest alleging that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question the agency's evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or regulation, lacks a reasonable basis, or is inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec. 27, 1999, 2000 CPD Para. 4 at 6. We conclude from the record that the protest is without merit. Crown challenges the fact that the contracting officer considered Crown's intent to pay its employees at the minimum permissible rates in her source selection decision. Protest at 4-5. The agency expressed concern during discussions that Crown's low initial pay rates and lack of pay raises for the option years would adversely affect employee morale and Crown's ability to attract and retain employees. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 9, Discussions Letter from Agency to Crown at 2-3 (Sept. 9, 1999). Crown's revised proposal did not propose any wage revisions or offer any plan to allay the agency's concerns.