Star Mountain, Inc., B-285883, October 25, 2000

B-285883 Oct 25, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's failure to downgrade awardee's proposal for lack of understanding was reasonable where the record shows that the agency's analysis included examining the awardee's supporting cost data and comparing its proposed prices with those of other offerors and a government estimate. Reasonably were found to demonstrate its understanding of the solicitation's requirements. 2. The FHMI is responsible for providing housing management training for civilian and military personnel of the Navy. The goal of the course instruction is to provide these personnel with a thorough understanding and working knowledge of broad policies and job-level procedures required to manage the Navy and Air Force housing programs. View Decision Matter of: Star Mountain, Inc. File: B-285883 Date: October 25, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Star Mountain, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the National Center for Housing Management, Inc. (NCHM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68836-00-R-0010, issued by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Department of the Navy, for training services. Star, the incumbent contractor, challenges the agency's price realism and past performance evaluations. We deny the protest. The RFP sought training services for the Family Housing Management Institute (FHMI). The FHMI is responsible for providing housing management training for civilian and military personnel of the Navy, Air Force, and other government services, and certain contractor personnel. The goal of the course instruction is to provide these personnel with a thorough understanding and working knowledge of broad policies and job-level procedures required to manage the Navy and Air Force housing programs. According to the statement of work (SOW), the training services include course instruction, curriculum and course material maintenance, and in some instances curriculum development. Courses are structured into lectures, simulations, discussions, exercises, and group projects covering topics such as housing assignment, housing management, financial management, and facilities contracting. Training is to be presented at five regional locations, including: FHMI Jacksonville, Florida (or anywhere east of the Mississippi River); San Diego, California (or anywhere west of the Mississippi River); Hawaii; Japan (or anywhere in the Far East); or Europe. The RFP, as amended, contemplated the award of a fixed-price (with some cost reimbursable items) requirements contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on a best value basis applying three equally weighted factors: past performance, technical, and cost/price. The past performance evaluation included review of offeror-submitted evidence of successful efforts in similar work. The technical evaluation included review of the offerors' information on key personnel, management plan, and quality control plan. The cost/price evaluation included review of the offerors' section B unit and extended prices, along with "supporting cost data." /1/ The RFP also provided that cost/price proposals would be evaluated for realism in regards to the relationship between the proposed Cost/Price and the technical proposal." RFP Sec. M.52.217-5(e). Four offerors, including NCHM and Star, submitted proposals by the May 1, 2000 closing time. One of the four withdrew its proposal and another proposal was found technically unacceptable. In evaluating Star's and NCHM's proposals, the contracting officer found pricing disparities in both. Accordingly, the contracting officer determined to open discussions with both offerors to resolve the pricing issues. The contracting officer also decided to allow oral demonstrations to assist the government in determining whether each offeror had a clear understanding of the RFP requirements and to assist the government in determining which offeror had the best technical approach. Based on the offerors' 2-hour oral presentations, the evaluators concluded that each had demonstrated their understanding of the requirements. While both offerors' proposals contained some weaknesses, the evaluators concluded that neither proposal contained deficiencies and that both proposals' strengths exceeded their weaknesses. After conducting discussions with both offerors, the agency obtained best and final offers (BAFO). After amending the RFP to convert the contract from an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity type to a fixed-price requirements type, the agency allowed the offerors to submit revised BAFOs.