James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, B-286129, November 27, 2000

B-286129 Nov 27, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technical and cost proposals were to be submitted and proposals were to be evaluated in the areas of technical capability. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal found to offer the best overall value to the government considering price and the non-price evaluation factors. Flanagan's offered price of [deleted] was low. Its proposal was rated poor understanding/high risk under the technical factor and good/moderate risk under the past performance factor. 375 was the second lowest. Its proposal was rated superior understanding/low risk under the technical factor and excellent-superior/low risk under the past performance factor. That most of the reportedly missing information was in fact included in its proposal and that. View Decision James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, B-286129, November 27, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation protests the award of a contract to P&O Ports Texas, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMT01-00-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for stevedoring and related services at the Port of Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. Flanagan contends that the agency misevaluated its proposal and improperly made award to P&O at a price higher than its own. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract to perform stevedoring and related services for a 2-year period. Technical and cost proposals were to be submitted and proposals were to be evaluated in the areas of technical capability, past performance and price, with technical capability and past performance, in combination, being approximately equal to price. The technical capability factor included five equally weighted subfactors: understanding of the work; management plan; proposed contractor furnished equipment; proposed safety and security plans and cargo loss and damage prevention program; and proposed quality control plan. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal found to offer the best overall value to the government considering price and the non-price evaluation factors. The agency reserved the right to make award on the basis of initial offers, without discussions. /1/ The agency received numerous proposals, including Flanagan's and P&O's. Flanagan's offered price of [deleted] was low, but its proposal was rated poor understanding/high risk under the technical factor and good/moderate risk under the past performance factor. In assigning these ratings, the agency noted numerous material proposal deficiencies, in particular, the absence of a management plan, a safety and security plan, a cargo loss and damage prevention program, and a quality control plan. P&O's price of $1,164,375 was the second lowest, and its proposal was rated superior understanding/low risk under the technical factor and excellent-superior/low risk under the past performance factor. The agency identified no deficiencies in the proposal. On the basis of these evaluation results, the Army determined that P&O's proposal represented the best value, and made award to that firm on the basis of initial offers. Flanagan maintains that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal, arguing, essentially, that most of the reportedly missing information was in fact included in its proposal and that, to the extent that there may have been informational deficiencies, its capabilities are nonetheless well known to the agency because the firm is the incumbent for this requirement. In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of technical proposals, our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we limit our review to considering whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. McHargue Constr. Co., B-279715, July 16, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 21 at 5. Moreover, agencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the material submitted, and offerors run the risk of having their proposals downgraded or rejected where the proposal as submitted is inadequately written. Id. at 6. The record supports the agency's evaluation conclusions. Regarding the management plan, the RFP required offerors to identify managerial control and supervision plans; submit key personnel resumes showing the managerial experience and training of the individuals proposed; and propose staffing plans for the allocation of manpower, including the numbers and types of labor gangs and the offeror's plan for interfacing with the government. RFP at 41. Flanagan's technical proposal (which consists of only three pages) provides only general information in describing its management plan. The proposal represents -- without any supporting detail -- only that Flanagan is [deleted]. Flanagan Technical Proposal at 1-2.