Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013; B-287013.2, March 30, 2001

Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013; B-287013.2, March 30, 2001 TITLE: Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013; B-287013.2, March 30, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287013; B-287013.2 DATE: March 30, 2001 ********************************************************************** Special Operations Group, Inc., B-287013; B-287013.2, March 30, 2001 Decision Matter of: Special Operations Group, Inc. File: B-287013; B-287013.2 Date: March 30, 2001 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon & Tolle, for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Glenn G.Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency improperly awarded a contract on the basis of the lowest priced proposal where the proposal failed to comply with a material solicitation requirement. 2. Where solicitation provided for contract award on the basis of a cost-technical tradeoff emphasizing technical merit over cost/price, it was improper for the agency to evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and then make its source selection decision on the basis of what it perceived to be the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal without advising offerors of this change in the source selection criteria. DECISION Special Operations Group, Inc. (SOGI) protests the Department of State's award of a contract to Triumph Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-LMAQM-00-R-0079 to provide personnel to safeguard classified material while that material is in-transit to diplomatic missions. SOGI protests that Triumph's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirements, and that the agency failed to make its source selection decision on the basis of the criteria specified in the solicitation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on August 16, 2000 as a competitive set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) program, see 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (1994), and sought proposals to provide personnel "to protect and safeguard sensitive/controlled cargo and classified material that may be vulnerable to technical penetration and unauthorized access while the cargo/material is in-transit to U.S. Diplomatic Missions." RFP at 7. As amended, the solicitation directed offerors to submit separate technical and price proposals and required that price proposals include fully loaded fixed labor rates applicable to various labor categories for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. [1] The RFP identified the individual proposed to serve as project manager as the only "key personnel," requiring as follows: "The offeror shall provide a resume of the proposed Project Manager . . . If the offeror proposes a person that is not currently employed by the offeror then the offeror shall provide a signed copy of a letter of intent with that person." [2] RFP at 46-47. Regarding the evaluation of technical proposals, the RFP established two evaluation factors--experience and past performance--and provided that experience was to be more important than past performance. RFP at 52. Regarding the relative importance of technical and cost/price factors, the RFP stated "technical merit is more important than cost or price," and advised offerors that "[t]he Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between technical merit and cost or price promises the best value to the Government." Id. Six offerors, including SOGI and Triumph, submitted proposals by the October 6, 2000 closing date. Thereafter, a single evaluator assessed the technical proposals against ten evaluation criteria and made determinations as to whether the proposals were acceptable or unacceptable with regard to each criterion. [3] At a hearing conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO), [4] the technical evaluator testified that he established the 10 criteria based on the solicitation's statement of work and his knowledge of the prior contract's requirements, and that he was directed to evaluate proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by the agency's contract specialist. Video Transcript (VT) at 10:02-03, 11:14; Declaration of Technical Evaluator para. 3. Following the evaluation of initial proposals, the contracting officer established a competitive range consisting of Triumph, SOGI, and two other offerors, and thereafter conducted discussions with each competitive range offeror. [5] Following discussions, final revised proposals were requested and submitted. [6] In the final evaluation, each competitive range proposal was evaluated as acceptable (that is, received a score of 1 point) for each of the 10 evaluation criteria.