Fisher-Cal Industries, Inc., B-285150.2, July 6, 2000

B-285150.2 Jul 06, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of contracting agency's decision to terminate awardee's contract and resolicit the requirement is denied where the agency's decision. Is reasonable under the circumstances to protect the integrity of the procurement system. The Air Force's decision is corrective action in response to a protest filed by a competitor. The protest is denied. To the firm whose offer was most advantageous to the government. Offers were to be ranked according to price. The technical evaluation team (TET) was to evaluate the lowest-priced technical proposals against four evaluation factors: contract management/staffing. The contracting officer was to seek performance information on the lowest-priced. View Decision Matter of: Fisher-Cal Industries, Inc. File: B-285150.2 Date: July 6, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Fisher-Cal Industries, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's decision to terminate its contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. F28609-99-R0004 and to resolicit the requirement. The Air Force's decision is corrective action in response to a protest filed by a competitor, which argued that the Air Force had improperly evaluated Fisher-Cal's proposal. The protest is denied. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for visual information services at McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey. RFP at 1, 4, 7; Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The agency planned to award the contract, without conducting discussions, to the firm whose offer was most advantageous to the government, considering technical capability, past performance, and price factors. RFP at 51, 48-49. Competing offerors' past and present performance history, and technical factors, would be significantly more important than price. RFP at 48. The RFP explained its evaluation methodology as follows. First, offers were to be ranked according to price. Next, the technical evaluation team (TET) was to evaluate the lowest-priced technical proposals against four evaluation factors: contract management/staffing; equipment; product samples; and quality control. Finally, the contracting officer was to seek performance information on the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offers and make a risk assessment. If the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer was judged to have an exceptional performance rating, that offer would be deemed to represent the best value for the government and award was to be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. /1/ If the lowest-priced offeror had a performance risk rating of very good, the government could award the contract to another firm after making an "integrated assessment best value award decision." RFP at 48-49. The Air Force received five proposals in response to the solicitation and conducted its evaluation. The contracting officer determined that the proposal submitted by Fisher-Cal, the incumbent contractor, provided the best overall value to the government. She recommended award to the firm because they were the lowest-priced offeror; they had an exceptional present and past performance rating; and they had "demonstrated their superb technical capability during their past and present performance here at McGuire AFB as well as for other Government agencies." Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Integrated Best Value Assessment. After its debriefing, an unsuccessful offeror filed a protest in our Office arguing that Fisher-Cal had failed to comply with the RFP's requirements and the Air Force had improperly evaluated the firm's proposal. The protest prompted the Air Force to review the procurement file. This review revealed what the Air Force believed to be serious flaws in the procurement. One week after the protest was filed, the Air Force advised this Office that, based upon these flaws, it had decided to terminate Fisher-Cal's contract and resolicit the requirement from the initial offerors. The solicitation was to be revised to ensure that there were no ambiguities or misunderstandings as to the technical requirements. AR, Tab 9, E-Mail Analysis of Procurement. This Office dismissed the protest as academic on April 27, 2000. On that same day, Fisher-Cal filed the instant protest of the decision to terminate its contract. The firm complained that its overall price had been exposed by being posted on the Electronic Posting System (EPS), giving other offerors an unfair advantage during the resolicitation. After receiving a copy of the prior protest, Fisher-Cal, on May 12, raised various additional arguments in support of its award. /2/ Generally, we decline to review the termination of contracts for the convenience of the government because such actions are matters of contract administration. We will review the propriety of the termination where the termination flows from a defect the contracting agency perceived in the award process.