ABIC Ltd., B-286460, January 12, 2001

B-286460 Jan 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of exclusion of protester's proposal from the competitive range is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria announced in the solicitation. ABIC contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated based on an unreasonable. FEMA is authorized to provide assistance to applicants for grants in presidentially declared disasters and emergencies. Once a disaster is declared. Affected persons are instructed to apply for assistance. Their applications are then forwarded to contractor inspectors who collect information on disaster-related expenses. Which will enable the agency to determine the type and amount of disaster assistance to which applicants are entitled. View Decision Matter of: ABIC Ltd. File: B-286460 Date: January 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ABIC, Ltd., doing business as femaINSPECTOR.com, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. EMW-2000-RP-0018, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for inspection services in disaster areas. ABIC contends that its proposal was improperly eliminated based on an unreasonable, biased evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5221 et seq. (1994), FEMA is authorized to provide assistance to applicants for grants in presidentially declared disasters and emergencies. Once a disaster is declared, affected persons are instructed to apply for assistance. Their applications are then forwarded to contractor inspectors who collect information on disaster-related expenses, which will enable the agency to determine the type and amount of disaster assistance to which applicants are entitled. The RFP contemplated the award of two or more indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contracts, for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years. Offerors were required to submit a "limited written technical proposal," and to make an oral presentation (required in lieu of a detailed written technical proposal), which were to be based on two scenarios, one mandatory and one optional. /1/ Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals were considered most advantageous to the government based upon technical and price factors, with technical factors significantly more important than price. RFP Sec. M.2. The following technical factors and subfactors were specified (with weights, on a scale of 100 possible points): (1) technical approach and understanding, 40 points (including phase-in (5 points), operations (20 points), and quality control (15 points)); (2) corporate experience (5 points) and past performance (20 points); (3) staffing and key personnel, 15 points; (4) cultural diversity and customer service, 15 points; and (5) small, disadvantaged business participation, 5 points). RFP Sec. M.4. Eight offerors, including ABIC, submitted written proposals and subsequently made oral presentations. The source evaluation board (SEB) evaluated the initial written proposals and the oral presentations for scenario No. 1 as follows: Offeror Technical Score Adjectival Rating Offeror 1 92 Superior Offeror 2 88 Superior Offeror 3 85 Superior Offeror 4 77 Acceptable Offeror 5 75 Acceptable Offeror 6 72 Unacceptable but susceptible Offeror 7 59 Unacceptable but susceptible ABIC 27 Unacceptable Contracting Officer's Statement at H. Based on the initial evaluation and recommendation of the SEB, the proposals of Offeror 7 and ABIC were excluded from the competitive range. /2/ After receiving a written debriefing, ABIC filed this protest with our Office. ABIC asserts that the competitive range determination was flawed because it was based on an erroneous and biased technical evaluation. ABIC specifically challenges each of the evaluated weaknesses in its proposal. The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 84 at 3. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.306(c) allows an agency to establish a competitive range consisting of only the most highly-rated proposals. Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of the solicitation. FAR Sec. 15.305(a); Novavax, Inc., B-286167, B-286167.2, Dec. 4, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 202 at 13; SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 59 at 4. Based on our review, we find that the evaluation and the resulting decision to exclude ABIC's proposal from the competitive range were reasonable.