SWR, Inc., B-286229; B-286229.2, December 5, 2000

SWR, Inc., B-286229; B-286229.2, December 5, 2000 TITLE: SWR, Inc., B-286229; B-286229.2, December 5, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286229; B-286229.2 DATE: December 5, 2000 ********************************************************************** SWR, Inc., B-286229; B-286229.2, December 5, 2000 Decision Matter of: SWR, Inc. File: B-286229; B-286229.2 Date: December 5, 2000 Benjamin M. Bowden, Esq., Albrittons, Clifton, Alverson & Moody, for the protester. Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency decision to exclude proposal for operation of two animal care facilities from the competitive range as unacceptable was reasonable where proposal confused requirements of the facilities, failed to address requirements of one facility, and did not address potential problems that could affect the animals and possible solutions to those problems. DECISION SWR, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2000-N-00050, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for the care and maintenance of laboratory animals (used for research) at the Chamblee and Lawrenceville animal care facilities. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a best value evaluation based on technical, past performance and price factors. The technical factors to be evaluated were staffing, experience and qualifications; management approach; understanding the project; and quality assurance plan. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals received and determined that SWR's was unacceptable due to substantial informational and other deficiencies under each evaluation factor; it concluded that SWR did not understand how to operate an animal care facility for laboratory animals. Competitive Range Decision (CRD) at 2. More specifically, with respect to staffing, the TEP found that SWR did not propose a sufficient number of personnel to ensure compliance with the statement of work, proposed an assistant project manager without minimal experience and education requirements, and lacked the depth to provide staff. Evaluation Report (ER) at 5. With respect to management approach, the TEP questioned SWR's ability to provide the initial workforce and replacements, and found that the proposal did not set forth an adequate recruitment plan and did not discuss potential difficulties and problems that may be involved in performing animal husbandry services, with approaches for their resolutions. [1] Id. With respect to understanding the problem, the TEP was concerned because SWR repeated the standard operating procedures listed in the RFP without discussing how they would be implemented. Id. Finally, under quality assurance plan, the TEP found that SWR's plan for contact with the project manager was unrealistic. Id. at 6. CDC excluded SWR from the competitive range based on the unacceptability of its technical proposal. CRD at 2. SWR protests that decision, challenging several aspects of the evaluation. The competitive range consists of the most highly rated proposals (except where the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency), based on evaluation of the information submitted in each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria. United Housing Servs., Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999, 99-1 para. 80 at 3. An offeror runs the risk of having its proposal downgraded and excluded from the competitive range if the proposal is inadequately written. Id. In reviewing protests of competitive range determinations, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 4. The evaluation here, and the agency's decision to exclude SWR's proposal from the competitive range, were reasonable. MANAGEMENT APPROACH CDC found SWR's proposal deficient under the management approach factor because, among other things, in addressing anticipated problems that could arise and potential solutions to those problems, SWR did not indicate that it had access to veterinary or laboratory animal science consultation services. ER at 5. SWR concedes that it would be logical for the agency to require the contractor to have access to professional consultation services, Protest at 3, but argues that, since the solicitation did not list such a requirement, it was improper for CDC to use this as a criterion in evaluating SWR's proposal. Solicitations must inform offerors of the basis for proposal evaluation, and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth in the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.sect. 15.304(d), 15.305(a).