Cherokee Information Services, B-287270, April 12, 2001

B-287270 Apr 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Whose technical proposal was initially evaluated as containing a number of weaknesses. Agency was not obligated to advise protester during discussions that its price was higher than awardee's. Was restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) set-aside program. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness relative to the government's independent estimate. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the best value to the government. The contracting officer (CO) informed CIS that discussions were being held. That although its proposal was included within the competitive range. There were no clarifications required or deficiencies in its proposal that needed to be addressed. View Decision Matter of: Cherokee Information Services File: B-287270 Date: April 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cherokee Information Services (CIS) protests the award of a contract to Business Plus Corporation (BPC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-01-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for operating a delivery control center in support of the Air Operations Squadron at Langley Air Force Base. /1/ CIS contends that the agency conducted unequal technical discussions, and improperly failed to discuss CIS's proposed price. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 30, 2000, was restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) set-aside program, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the required support services for a 6-month phase-in period, a basic year, and up to four 1-year option periods. /2/ The RFP listed past performance, mission capability, and price as evaluation factors in descending order of importance, with past performance and mission capability considered primary and of equal importance. /3/ The RFP explained that in assessing past performance, the agency would rate proposals using a confidence rating scale ranging from unsatisfactory/no confidence to exceptional/high confidence, or neutral/unknown. Id. Sec. 9. The RFP also stated that the subfactors within the mission capability area would be evaluated by applying the following color/adjectival ratings: blue (exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), or red (unacceptable). Id. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness relative to the government's independent estimate, the offeror's technical approach, and the other offerors' prices. Id. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the best value to the government. Following the initial evaluation, the Air Force retained CIS's, BPC's, and a third firm's (Offeror A) proposal within the competitive range. The agency then initiated discussions by submitting evaluation notices (EN) identifying deficiencies, weaknesses, or areas of the proposals requiring clarification to BPC and Offeror A. On December 11, the contracting officer (CO) informed CIS that discussions were being held, and that although its proposal was included within the competitive range, there were no clarifications required or deficiencies in its proposal that needed to be addressed. Agency Report (AR) exh. 8. By letter dated January 10, 2001, the agency requested final proposal revisions (FPR), and reevaluated proposals based on the FPRs, with the following adjectival and color ratings for the three firms whose proposals were retained within the competitive range: MISSION CAPABILITY Past Work Cont. Qual. Prop. Trans. Price Perf. Mmgt. Pers. Control Mmgt. ($mil) CIS E/High Blue Blue Blue Green Green $4.981 BPC E/High Blue Green Blue Green Green 4.35 Offeror VG/Sig Green Green Green Green Green 5.345 A AR exh. 18, Proposal Evaluation Report (PER), at 28. Based on these results, the CO, who was the source selection authority (SSA) for this acquisition, found that CIS had submitted the highest rated technical proposal. Id. at 29. The SSA noted that within the mission capability factor, CIS's blue (exceptional) rating under the program workload management subfactor reflected the firm's "outstanding understanding of the mission . . . ." Id. The SSA further noted that CIS's rating under the contractor personnel subfactor was the only blue (exceptional) rating assigned, reflecting a highly qualified team, and that CIS's proposal also earned the highest possible rating under the quality control plan subfactor. As for price, the record shows that the agency reviewed all offerors' proposed prices for reasonableness and accuracy, and found that the variation in total prices was attributable to such factors as different number of personnel proposed, hourly rates, and other direct costs and overhead. Id.