Matter of: Basic Contracting Services, Inc.

B-284649 May 18, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency evaluation of technical proposals is unobjectionable where the record establishes that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Discussions were meaningful where they explicitly apprised the protester of the area of its proposal that required revision. 3. Protest that agency failed to perform proper cost/technical tradeoff is denied where source selection official considered all relevant proposal evaluation material and cost in making his award determination and reasonably determined that the evaluated technical superiority of the highest technically-rated proposal warranted payment of the associated cost premium. The factors are listed in descending order of importance. View Decision Matter of: Basic Contracting Services, Inc. File: B-284649 Date: May 18, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Basic Contracting Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to JWK International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD07-99-R-0126, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) as a small business set-aside for base operations support services for the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Basic challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal, the conduct of discussions, and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued June 18, 1999, provides for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 3-year base period with two 2-year options. RFP Executive Summary at 1. The solicitation, which combines services currently being performed for AMC under 22 separate support service contracts, calls for the successful offeror to provide operational, maintenance, repair and other support services for facilities, systems, equipment and personnel at the base. RFP attach. 1, Purchase Description, at 1. Section M.1 of the RFP provides for award "on a best value basis" to the offeror whose management, technical, past performance and probable cost "represent the best buy to the Government." The RFP identifies the following evaluation factors and subfactors: 1. Management a. Organization b. Personnel Management c. Start-up Plan d. Assignment Process e. Quality Control 1. Technical a. Environmental/Protection and Conservation b. Documentation Services c. Engineering and Technical Services d. Custodial e. Refuse f. Grounds and Irrigation Maintenance g. Facility Maintenance h. Equipment Repair i. Maintain Inventory 1. Past Performance 2. Cost RFP Sec. M.3. The factors are listed in descending order of importance; the various subfactors listed under each factor are equal in value. Each subfactor is broken into two or more subparts or "definers" with each being of equal value. Id. Management and technical factors were to be scored on the basis of adjectival ratings of "exceptional," "very good," "acceptable," "marginal," or "unacceptable." RFP Sec. M.2. The RFP also distinguished between proposal risk and performance risk and stated that the agency would assess both types of risks. RFP Sec. M.4. Performance risk, defined as risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance, would be assessed by the Performance Risk Assessment Group and assigned a specific narrative rating under the past performance factor. RFP Sec. M.4.a.2. Proposal risk, defined as risks associated with an offeror's proposed approach in meeting the requirements, would be assessed by the evaluators and integrated into the evaluation of the various subfactors under the management/technical and cost factors. RFP Sec. M.4.a.1. Offerors were also advised that a cost realism analysis would be performed to ensure that proposed costs are realistic, reflect a clear understanding of the work to be performed, and are consistent with the technical proposal. RFP Sec. M.6. Eight proposals were received, including those of Basic and JWK, by the July 26 closing date and, as called for by the solicitation, each offeror provided an oral presentation on its management and technical approach. The proposals were reviewed individually by each of the six members of the proposal evaluation board (PEB). Each PEB member prepared individual lists of strengths and weaknesses and assigned ratings for each management and technical factor for each proposal. The evaluators then reached a consensus rating and ranking for each proposal, and the cost analyst performed a preliminary cost review. The four most highly rated proposals, including those submitted by Basic and JWK, were included in the competitive range. As relevant here, Basic's initial technical proposal was rated "very good" and its management proposal was rated "exceptional." Agency Report, Tab 20, Initial Evaluation for Basic's Management/Technical Proposal, at 33.