Arctic Slope World Services, Inc., B-284481; B-284481.2, April 27, 2000

Arctic Slope World Services, Inc., B-284481; B-284481.2, April 27, 2000 TITLE: Arctic Slope World Services, Inc., B-284481; B-284481.2, April 27, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284481; B-284481.2 DATE: April 27, 2000 ********************************************************************** Arctic Slope World Services, Inc., B-284481; B-284481.2, April 27, 2000 Decision Matter of: Arctic Slope World Services, Inc. File: B-284481; B-284481.2 Date: April 27, 2000 Guy A. Randles, Esq., Darian A. Stanford, Esq., and Charles F. Adams, Esq., Stoel Rives, for the protester. William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., and William S. Lieth, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for Chugach Eareckson Support Services, an intervenor. Capt. Jennifer M. Bell-Towne, Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the contracting agency misevaluated the protester's and awardee's competing proposals under certain technical evaluation criteria, including past performance, is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment unreasonable. 2. Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing discussions that "spoon-feed" an offeror each item that must be addressed to improve a proposal; agency reasonably led protester into the areas of its proposal with shortcomings that warranted amplification or clarification. 3. Agency's determination, under a price evaluation factor, that the awardee's proposed price for a fixed-price contract was realistic and reasonable based on a comparison for similar service's prices under other agency contracts, is unobjectionable. 4. Protest that evaluation of protester's proposal was influenced by bias on the part of contracting officials is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation and contains no evidence of bias. DECISION Arctic Slope World Services, Inc. (ASWS) protests the award of a contract to Chugach Eareckson Support Services (CESS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F65501-99-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operations, maintenance and support services (BOS) at Eareckson Air Station (AS), Shemya Island, Alaska. ASWS challenges the evaluation of proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the award determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Eareckson AS is a remote site with extreme weather conditions and accompanying operational constraints, situated at the end of the Aleutian Chain approximately 1,500 miles from Anchorage, Alaska. Air transport is the primary means of access and re-supply. According to the RFP's performance work statement (PWS), the successful contractor must provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and services necessary to perform station operations and maintenance as set forth in the PWS. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with award fee, plus fixed-price reimbursable and labor hour line items, for a phase-in period, base year, four 1-year options, and one 6-month option for a total performance period not to exceed 5 years and 2 months. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of four factors (and related subfactors), listed in descending order of importance: (1) management (personnel, transition plan, quality, and training plan), (2) technical ((power production, electrical distribution and aircraft arresting system), facilities, air field, security/COMSEC, communications-electronics, environmental, and logistics); (3) past performance; and (4) price. RFP sect. M-484.C.1. Offerors' responses under each item and factor were evaluated on the basis of three equally important criteria: soundness of approach; compliance with requirements; and understanding the requirement. RFP sect. M-484.B. Evaluations under the management and technical factors were expressed in the following colors/adjectives: blue (exceptional); green (acceptable); yellow (marginal); and red (unacceptable). The management and technical factors and subfactors also were evaluated for proposal risk: low, moderate, or high. Past performance was evaluated as a performance risk factor, based on information obtained from references supplied by the offerors and from others solicited by the agency. The past performance risk evaluation was expressed in the following colors/adjectives: blue (exceptional); green (satisfactory); tan (neutral); orange (marginal); and red (unsatisfactory). Price was evaluated on the basis of whether the price was realistic, reasonable, cost effective, and affordable, and to assess the offeror's understanding of the RFP. RFP sect. M-484.C.1.D.1. Price was not rated or scored.