S. C. Myers & Associates, Inc., B-286297, December 20, 2000

B-286297 Dec 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency relies on the offeror's representation that the individual will be performing the work in evaluating its proposal. Which was issued on December 28. Proposals were to be evaluated under three technical evaluation factors. Offerors were to make an oral presentation. The RFP advised offerors that the oral presentation and the question and answer session were not part of the offer and that they would not constitute discussions or obligate the agency to solicit revised offers. Offerors were advised at the preproposal conference. A transcript of which was included in amendment No. 1 to the RFP. That the offeror would then have 1 week to submit a revised business proposal. Offerors were instructed to furnish resumes for their proposed project director and other professional personnel. View Decision Matter of: S. C. Myers & Associates, Inc. File: B-286297 Date: December 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION S. C. Myers & Associates, Inc. (SCMA) protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to McKissack & McKissack under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-DCS-00-08, issued by the Department of Labor for program management services in support of the Job Corps design and construction program. The protester contends that the agency erred in finding its proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on December 28, 1999 as a total small business 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base and 4 option years. Services to be performed included project management and contract administration of design and construction contracts issued by the Department of Labor in support of the Job Corps program; on-site construction management and inspection; assistance in the procurement of furnishings and equipment for new Job Corps facilities; assistance in negotiations for site acquisition and continuing management and disposal of real property used by the Job Corps program; and ADP/LAN support. The RFP provided for a two-step evaluation of proposals. Under the first step, proposals were to be evaluated under three technical evaluation factors--individual staff experience and qualifications (worth 35 percent of the technical evaluation points), past performance (worth 20 percent of the technical evaluation points), and corporate experience with related work (worth 15 percent of the technical evaluation points)--and cost/price. RFP amend. 2, attach. II, Secs. M.2, M.3. Under the second step, offerors were to make an oral presentation, to be followed by a question and answer session, which would be used to evaluate their proposals under the fourth technical evaluation factor, technical approach (worth 30 percent of the technical evaluation points). Id. Sec. M.3. The RFP advised offerors that the oral presentation and the question and answer session were not part of the offer and that they would not constitute discussions or obligate the agency to solicit revised offers. RFP Sec. L.8. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose offer represented the best value to the government, with technical factors of significantly greater importance than cost/price. RFP Sec. M.2. Although the RFP, as initially issued, stated that the agency intended to award without discussions, RFP Sec. L.9, offerors were advised at the preproposal conference, a transcript of which was included in amendment No. 1 to the RFP, that on the same day that an offeror came in to make its oral presentation, the agency would conduct discussions with it regarding its business (i.e., cost) proposal, and that the offeror would then have 1 week to submit a revised business proposal. RFP amend. 1, at 29. To permit evaluation of their proposals under the staff experience and qualifications criterion, offerors were instructed to furnish resumes for their proposed project director and other professional personnel. In addition, offerors were instructed to furnish information regarding the time commitment of all professional personnel assigned to the project. The RFP required, in the latter regard, that all professional staff devote 100 percent of their time to the project. RFP amend. 2, attach. II, Sec. M.3. SCMA and McKissack, among others, submitted proposals prior to the March 15, 2000 closing date. In its proposal, SCMA identified the president of its proposed subcontractor, Contract Management Solutions, Inc. (CMSI), for the position of project director and another CMSI employee for the position of Director of Contract Operations; we refer to the two individuals in this decision as Ms. A and Ms. B, respectively. SCMA's proposal represented that each of the women would be devoting 100 percent of her time to the project.