KIRA Inc., B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3, July 23, 2001

KIRA Inc., B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3, July 23, 2001 TITLE: KIRA Inc., B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3, July 23, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3 DATE: July 23, 2001 ********************************************************************** KIRA Inc., B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3, July 23, 2001 Decision Matter of: KIRA Inc. File: B-287573; B-287573.2; B-287573.3 Date: July 23, 2001 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon & Tolle, for the protester. David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for Environmental Management, Inc., an intervenor. Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to downgrade awardee's technical proposal because of the possibility that one of its subcontractors might file for bankruptcy is denied where solicitation does not provide for the evaluation of proposals based on financial stability. 2. Protest that agency did not engage in meaningful discussions with protester is denied where record shows that all significant deficiencies were brought to protester's attention and firm was afforded an opportunity to address those concerns. DECISION KIRA, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Environmental Management, Inc. (EMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F24604-01-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for consolidated facilities maintenance services at Malmstrom Air Force Base. KIRA argues that the agency misevaluated EMI's and its proposal, and failed to conduct adequate discussions with the firm. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to perform numerous requirements, including facilities and grounds maintenance, custodial services, refuse and recycling removal services and simplified acquisition for base engineering requirements (SABER). Offerors were advised that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best overall value, considering both cost and non-cost factors. For evaluation purposes, the RFP provided that proposals would be rated either blue (exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal) or red (unacceptable), and also would be rated either low, moderate or high proposal risk, under five subfactors included within a mission capability factor: program management, SABER sample project technical evaluation, quality, increased coverage and cost visibility. The proposals also were to be evaluated for past performance (equal in weight to mission capability), under which factor they would be assigned adjectival/confidence ratings of exceptional/high confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, marginal/little confidence, or unsatisfactory/no confidence. Cost was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Mission capability, past performance and proposal risk, together, were significantly more important than cost. After receiving and evaluating initial proposals, engaging in discussions and obtaining final proposal revisions, the agency assigned identical adjectival and past performance ratings to the proposals submitted by KIRA and EMI. Agency Report (AR) Exh. 10 at 7. Specifically, both proposals received green/low risk ratings for the program management, SABER sample project and cost visibility subfactors and blue/low risk ratings under the quality and increased coverage subfactors of the mission capability criterion. Both proposals also received very good/significant confidence past performance ratings and both firms' proposed costs--EMI's was $41.3 million and KIRA's $44.3 million--were found to be reasonable and realistic. In addition to the adjectival ratings, the agency evaluators prepared narrative materials in which they further distinguished among the competing proposals. As is relevant here, those narrative materials show that EMI's was found to be the best proposal under the quality and increased coverage subfactors. Specifically, under the quality subfactor, the agency found that EMI offered enhanced service levels and also provided the best justification to achieve those increased service levels. Id. at 3-4. Under the increased coverage subfactor, the agency found that EMI provided more coverage at a lower overall cost than KIRA. Id. at 4-5. The agency concluded that EMI's lower cost, coupled with its proposed enhanced service levels and increased coverage, made its proposal the best value; the agency thus made award to EMI. AR Exh. 10 at 7. KIRA argues that EMI's proposal evaluation is flawed because the agency failed to take into consideration that one of EMI's significant subcontractors, Washington Group International, Inc. (WGI), was facing the possibility of bankruptcy.