Beacon Auto Parts, B-287483, June 13, 2001

B-287483 Jun 13, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is unobjectionable where the protester provides no basis to find unreasonable the agency's determinations regarding the qualifications of the protester's proposed on-site manager. Protest challenging the agency's best value source selection is sustained where the record shows that the agency failed to consider whether the awardee's higher-rated proposal was worth its higher price. The contractor will be required to furnish all labor. The solicitation stated that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. The RFP specified that the technical capability factors were more important than the past performance factors. View Decision Beacon Auto Parts, B-287483, June 13, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beacon Auto Parts protests the award of a contract to Nash Auto and Body Shop under request for proposals (RFP) No. 7FXI-T6-01-S27-N, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of GSA-owned vehicles assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana. Beacon protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal and that the agency did not consider price in selecting Nash's higher-priced proposal for award. We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with two 1-year options. RFP at 3, 29. The contractor will be required to furnish all labor, parts, equipment, tools, and supervision to inspect, maintain, and repair 770 GSA-owned vehicles located at Fort Polk. RFP at 3, 17. The solicitation stated that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered." RFP at 58. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors: 1. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors A. On-Site Manager's Resume/Commitment Letter B. Motor Vehicle Mechanic's Resume/Commitment Letter C. Tools/Equipment/Manuals 2. 2. Past Performance Evaluation Factors 3. A. Offeror's/On-Site Manager's Qualifications and Monthly Vehicle Rate A. Parts Suppliers/Commitment Letter Id. The RFP specified that the technical capability factors were more important than the past performance factors, and that these "non-cost" factors were significantly more important than price. RFP at 59. The agency received proposals from Beacon and Nash (the incumbent contractor) by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were reviewed by the agency to determine whether they included the information required by the RFP. Agency Report, Tabs 4 & 6, Initial Proposal Review. The agency subsequently identified five areas for Beacon and two for Nash, where their proposals failed to include the information required by the solicitation, and informed the offerors of these areas. For example, the agency found that neither offeror had submitted a letter of commitment signed by its proposed on-site manager, and that Beacon's proposal did not include with its past performance information the types of vehicles maintained or provide the names addresses or telephone numbers of its references. Agency Report, Tabs 5 & 7, Letters to Beacon and Nash (Mar. 1, 2001). Beacon and Nash provided the information requested by the agency, and the agency forwarded past performance survey questionnaires to three of the eight past performance references provided by Beacon, and to three of the four references listed by Nash. Agency Report, Tab 2, Nash's proposal at 79A-B; Tab 3, Beacon's Proposal at 79; Tab 9, Beacon's Response to Agency (Mar. 7, 2001); Tabs 10 & 11, Agency Letters to Offerors' Past Performance References. The agency received the completed surveys from the references, and evaluated the offerors' proposals. Nash's proposal received [DELETED] out of [DELETED] points under the technical capability evaluation factors and [DELETED] out of [DELETED] points under the past performance factors for a total score of [DELETED] out of [DELETED] points, at an evaluated price of $648,958. Agency Report, Tab 13, Evaluator Scoresheets for Nash's Proposal; Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum. Beacon's proposal received [DELETED] points under the technical capability evaluation factors and [DELETED] points under the past performance factors for a total score of [DELETED] points, at an evaluated price of $608,095. Agency Report, Tab 12, Evaluator Worksheets for Beacon's Proposal; Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum. The agency determined that Nash's proposal represented "the best value to the Government based on past performance and technical capability," and made award to that firm.