KIRA Inc., B-287573.4; B-287573.5, August 29, 2001

KIRA Inc., B-287573.4; B-287573.5, August 29, 2001 TITLE: KIRA Inc., B-287573.4; B-287573.5, August 29, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287573.4; B-287573.5 DATE: August 29, 2001 ********************************************************************** KIRA Inc., B-287573.4; B-287573.5, August 29, 2001 Decision Matter of: KIRA Inc. File: B-287573.4; B-287573.5 Date: August 29, 2001 Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq., Grayson & Kubli, 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 David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that award was improper because awardee's proposal evidenced an intent to violate solicitation's limitation on subcontracting clause is denied where awardee's proposal instead indicated that it would comply with the subcontracting limitation. 2. Protest that relative weights assigned the evaluation factors in the evaluation and resulting source selection decision were inconsistent with those set forth in the RFP is denied where record shows that award was consistent with evaluation scheme set forth in solicitation; fact that key discriminators among proposals were not the most heavily weighted factor is unobjectionable. DECISION KIRA, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Environmental Management, Inc. (EMI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. F24604-01-R-0001, for consolidated facilities maintenance services at Malmstrom Air Force Base. KIRA argues that EMI's proposal indicated an intention to deviate from the terms of the RFP's limitation on subcontracting clause. KIRA further argues that the relative weights assigned the evaluation factors in the award decision were inconsistent with those set forth in the RFP. We deny the protest. [1] The RFP, a small business set-aside, requested proposals to perform numerous facilities-related services, 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 (listed in descending order of importance): 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. 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 and source selection official 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 of its approach to achieving the proposed service levels. Under the increased coverage subfactor, the agency found that EMI provided more coverage at a lower overall cost than KIRA. Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 7. Finally, under the SABER sample project technical evaluation subfactor, the SSD stated that the proposal of EMI was "as strong or stronger" than the proposal of KIRA. Id. at 3.