G&N, L.L.C., B-285118; B-285118.2; B-285118.3, July 19, 2000

G&N, L.L.C., B-285118; B-285118.2; B-285118.3, July 19, 2000 TITLE: G&N, L.L.C., B-285118; B-285118.2; B-285118.3, July 19, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285118; B-285118.2; B-285118.3 DATE: July 19, 2000 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: G&N, L.L.C. File: B-285118; B-285118.2; B-285118.3 Date: July 19, 2000 Albert B. Krachman, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., Bracewell & Patterson, for the protester. William A. Roberts, III, Esq., and William Lieth, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for BMAR & Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Larry E. Beall, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation provides that technical proposals will receive highest possible score for fully satisfying the characteristics required in the solicitation and does not provide that additional credit will be given for exceeding the requirements, agency was not required to give additional evaluation credit to a proposal that may have exceeded the solicitation requirements. 2. Protest that evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable because it was inadequately documented is denied where the evaluation record, as clarified by narrative explanations provided by the agency, presents sufficient detail to assess the reasonableness of the conclusion that awardee's and protester's proposals were technically equivalent. DECISION G&N, L.L.C. protests the award of a contract to BMAR & Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA01-99-R-0049 issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for preventive maintenance and equipment inventory at healthcare facilities for the U.S. Medical Command (MEDCOM). G&N challenges the award on numerous grounds, primarily alleging that the Corps improperly evaluated proposals in a manner that was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria and inadequately documented, and that the Corps accorded preferential treatment to the incumbent during the evaluation process by conducting prejudicially unequal discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 1, 1999 as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract against which task orders for preventive maintenance and inventory (PMI) and operation and maintenance (O&M) of various MEDCOM facilities will be placed. The contract was to be awarded for a base period of 1 year, with four 1-year renewal options to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government. RFP sect. M-13. Section M of the RFP established the following evaluation factors and subfactors: I. Technical Experience and capabilities Technical approach Technical management Quality control II. Management Corporate Experience Personnel Qualifications Organization Response Time Strategy III. Price Reasonableness Realism Completeness RFP sect. M-10. Section M-10 of the RFP further provided that technical and management areas would be evaluated and scored for quality, and that the technical area would be significantly more important than management and price. Notwithstanding the emphasis on technical merit, the RFP advised that as "scores and relative advantages or disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal." RFP sect. M-14.a. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) performed an evaluation and scored the quality of each proposal based upon the established evaluation factors. The solicitation provided that SSEB members would support their evaluation scores with a narrative, setting forth strengths and advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies and required clarifications. RFP sect. M-12.2.b. The RFP also provided explicit scoring guidelines as follows: outstanding (91-100%), excellent (81-90%), satisfactory (71-80%), susceptible to being made acceptable (65-70%), and unacceptable (64% or less), along with a narrative description of the standard that must be met for each score. As relevant to the issues presented here, the guidelines provide that, under each evaluation factor, in order to warrant a rating of "outstanding," the proposal must: satisfy to the fullest extent those characteristics required in the RFP. It presents new or proven methods and is presented in extensive detail to assure the evaluator has a thorough understanding of the proposed approach. The approach has an outstanding probability of meeting requirements with limited technical risk. In order to be rated "excellent," a proposal must: satisfy all the characteristics required in the RFP. It presents a methodology in sufficient detail to assure the evaluator a good understanding of the proposed approach.