Instrument Control Service, Inc., B-285776, September 6, 2000

B-285776 Sep 06, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest is denied where the protester. Fails to show that it was prejudiced. Even assuming its objections are correct. 2. Protest that awardee's low proposed fixed price was unrealistic is denied where the agency evaluated the realism of the awardee's price. The protester failed to show that any part of the agency's price realism analysis was erroneous or unreasonable. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis and that the technical evaluation factors were together more important than price. The technical evaluation factors were stated to be (1) technical approach. (4) personnel qualifications. /2/ Technical approach was stated to be equal in importance to the remaining technical evaluation factors together. View Decision Matter of: Instrument Control Service, Inc. File: B-285776 Date: September 6, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Instrument Control Service, Inc. (ICS) protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA112-00-R-0008, issued by the Television-Audio Support Activity, Department of Defense (DOD), for operation and maintenance of audio-visual, broadcast, photographic and support equipment and systems at the Defense Information School. /1/ ICS contends that the agency misevaluated its and LB&B's proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued under the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 for the acquisition of commercial items, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP provided performance-based specifications for performing the contract work requirements. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis and that the technical evaluation factors were together more important than price. The technical evaluation factors were stated to be (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; (3) management capability; and (4) personnel qualifications. /2/ Technical approach was stated to be equal in importance to the remaining technical evaluation factors together, and past performance was stated to be equal in importance to the remaining two factors. The RFP provided that price would be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Proposal preparation instructions detailed the information that offerors were to provide for each of the evaluation factors. Offerors were also informed that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions. The agency received five proposals, including ICS's (the incumbent contractor) and LB&B's, which were evaluated by the agency's two-person technical evaluation team (TET). The technical evaluators individually scored each proposal, discussed their ratings, and adopted a consensus judgment of each proposal's rating. /3/ Contracting Officer's Statement at 7; Agency Report, Tab 21, Proposal Analysis Report, at 3. LB&B's, ICS's, and the highest-rated offeror's proposals were evaluated as follows: Technical Factor Total points Offeror A LB&B ICS /4/ Technical [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] approach Past performance [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] Management [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] capability Personnel [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] qualifications TOTAL 1,000 877 853 854 PRICE $6 million $6.54 $3.85 $6.02 /5/ (IGE) million million million ICS's and LB&B's proposals were the second and third highest-rated. They were determined to be strong proposals, presenting low technical and performance risk, and demonstrating a complete understanding of the contract requirements, sound technical background and approach to performing the requirements, and good past performance and experience. Agency Report, Tab 21, Proposal Analysis Report, at 9. The two firms' technical proposals were found to present many "value added features" and only a few minor weaknesses. Agency Report, Tab 16C, TET Consensus Evaluation Scoring, at 1-3; Tab 21, Proposal Analysis Report, at 6-7, 9-10. With respect to ICS's proposal, the consensus evaluation identified only two weaknesses: "[DELETED]" and "[DELETED]." Agency Report, Tab 16C, Consensus Narrative Summary, at 3. The agency's contract team (CT) evaluated the offerors' proposed pricing for reasonableness and realism, and determined both firms' prices to be reasonable and realistic. Agency Report, Tab 20, Price Analysis Report, at 4. The TET's and CT's findings were presented to the source selection authority (SSA) with the recommendation that LB&B receive the award because it offered the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 21, Proposal Analysis Report, at 10. The SSA adopted this recommendation and selected LB&B's proposal for award. Agency Report, Tab 22, Source Selection Decision.