Symtech Corporation, B-285358, August 21, 2000

B-285358 Aug 21, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors announced in the solicitation and. Protester does not challenge or otherwise provide any evidence showing that the evaluation team's consensus ratings were not reasonable. 2. Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated its past performance because it excluded two references the firm submitted with its proposal is denied. Where the agency reasonably excluded the references for contracts that were not directly relevant to the procurement. Allegation that contracting agency should have rejected awardee's proposal as unacceptable because it shows that the firm does not intend to comply with the solicitation's limitation on subcontracting clause is denied where the awardee did not take exception in its offer to the subcontracting limitation provision. View Decision Matter of: Symtech Corporation File: B-285358 Date: August 21, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Symtech Corporation protests the award of a contract to Infinity Technology, Inc. under request for offers (RFO) No. 4-99001, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), for technical and administrative support services. Symtech contends that the agency improperly evaluated technical proposals, its past performance, and price. The protester also argues that the selection of Infinity's proposal was improper because the awardee's offer indicated that the firm would not comply with the mandatory "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause in the RFO. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFO was issued on January 14, 2000, and was restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) set-aside program. RFO at 1. The RFO contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with some indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) provisions for a phase-in period and a basic 2-year period with one 3-year option period, which could be extended in 1-year increments, up to an additional 5 years. RFO, Description/Work Statement/Specification, at 3-4; and Para. F, Award Term, at 6. The services to be obtained on a fixed-price basis include the following seven functional areas: administrative office support, resources management, financial management, acquisition management, research library, technical publications, and reproduction center. In addition to those services, integrated financial management program (IFMP) support is to be procured as an ID/IQ item. RFO at 3-7; Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement of Facts, June 2, 2000, at 2. The RFO stated that while the following evaluation factors were essentially equal in importance, they were listed in "slightly descending" order of importance: technical approach and personnel, relevant experience and past performance, and price. RFO Sec. 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items (Jan. 1999), at 41. The RFO also stated that the technical approach and past performance areas were significantly more important than price. Id. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. Eighteen firms, including the protester and the awardee, responded to the RFO by the time set on March 14 for receipt of initial proposals. Individual experts then independently rated the technical proposals by evaluating them under each of the functional areas within their respective area of expertise. These experts assigned numerical and adjectival ratings for each area, and identified major and minor strengths and weaknesses for each proposal. For each offeror, the agency separately evaluated relevant experience and past performance based on questionnaires completed by the offerors' references. The agency also evaluated price in terms of relative ranking when compared with other offers, and reasonableness. After the functional-area experts individually rated proposals, and past performance and price were evaluated, an evaluation team, referred to in the record as the "buying team," then discussed the findings and reached a consensus overall adjectival rating for each proposal under the evaluation areas ranging from poor to excellent, with the following results for the three firms whose proposals earned the most favorable ratings: Technical Past Perf. Price/Rating Infinity Very Good Excellent $13,638,885/Good Symtech Good Very Good 13,424,708/Very Good Offeror C Good Fair 12,863,171/Good CO's Statement of Facts, supra, at 5, 7; Agency Report (AR) exh. J-8, Memorandum for the Record, Midrange Buying Team, Apr.