International Resources Recovery, Inc., B-287160, March 30, 2001

B-287160 Mar 30, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Discussions with protester concerning unrealistic prices were meaningful where agency identified specific line item prices that it considered too low and stated that the overall price was too low. Based on a trade-off analysis of past performance and price. /1/ The RFP stated that past performance is significantly more important than price. Although the references were to send the questionnaires directly to the Air Force. The RFP stated that it was "the sole responsibility" of the offeror to track and ensure that questionnaires were received by the Air Force by proposal submission date. The adjectival rating was to reflect the agency's assessment of confidence in determining an offeror's ability to perform the solicited contract requirements. View Decision Matter of: International Resources Recovery, Inc. File: B-287160 Date: March 30, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION International Resources Recovery, Inc. (IRRI) protests an award to Urrutia, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08651-00-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Air Force for refuse, recycling, and compost collection and disposal services at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued July 12, 2000, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract for a base period with 4 option years. The RFP included 150 contract line item numbers (CLIN). The RFP stated an evaluation scheme under which the offer deemed most advantageous to the government would be selected for award from among the technically acceptable proposals, based on a trade-off analysis of past performance and price. /1/ The RFP stated that past performance is significantly more important than price. RFP at 52. The RFP required past performance information for five of an offeror's most recent and relevant contracts as well as past performance questionnaires from at least three of the contract references. Although the references were to send the questionnaires directly to the Air Force, the RFP stated that it was "the sole responsibility" of the offeror to track and ensure that questionnaires were received by the Air Force by proposal submission date. The RFP stated that an adjectival past performance rating would be assigned to each offeror based on the offeror's recent and relevant contract performance as determined from the past performance questionnaires and information independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The adjectival rating was to reflect the agency's assessment of confidence in determining an offeror's ability to perform the solicited contract requirements. The RFP stated six possible ratings ranging from a high of exceptional/high confidence to a low of unsatisfactory/no confidence, and included a rating of neutral/unknown confidence for offerors with no relevant past performance history. RFP at 52-54. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. The RFP stated that unrealistically low or high prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from consideration for award on the basis that the offeror either does not understand the requirement or has made an improvident proposal. RFP at 54. The RFP stated that the agency would make award without discussions, but reserved the right to conduct discussions if it was deemed in the best interests of the government to do so. The closing date for submission of proposals was August 18. RFP amend. 0002. The Air Force received nine proposals. All proposals were determined to be technically acceptable. The agency conducted discussions with all nine offerors between August 28 and November 15. /2/ Agency Report at 4. Discussions with IRRI addressed both past performance and price. By letter of August 28, the agency identified and requested correction of discrepancies between IRRI's unit and extended prices on the CLINs, and stated that the agency had received only two of the three past performance questionnaires required by the RFP. Agency Report, Tab 14, IRRI Discussion Letter (Aug. 28, 2000). Following submission of proposal revisions and other communications between the agency and IRRI, the agency's final discussion letter stated that IRRI's prices on 75 CLINs as well as its overall price appeared low, requested IRRI to verify its prices, and stated that the agency still had not receive additional past performance questionnaires for IRRI. This letter also stated the following: This concludes discussions. Your firm is hereby provided the opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision [which] must be received . . . by 28 Nov 00, 4:30 PM . . . Agency Report, Tab 20, IRRI Discussion Letter (Nov.