Maytag Aircraft Corporation, B-287589, July 5, 2001

B-287589 Jul 05, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal as marginal under one aspect of the technical evaluation is denied where the record shows the proposal lacked information showing satisfaction of experience requirements by one proposed key person even after agency requested that the required information be provided. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Awardee with no Department of Defense past performance was properly given neutral rating for this aspect of the evaluation. Award of a fixed-price contract was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. View Decision Maytag Aircraft Corporation, B-287589, July 5, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Maytag Aircraft Corporation protests the award of a contract to Midwest Weather, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA90-00-R-0016, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to obtain meteorological services. Maytag contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. We deny the protest. The NGB issued this solicitation on November 2, 2000, to obtain weather observation services for the Air National Guard at seven locations throughout the United States, and weather forecasting services at two of those locations. Award of a fixed-price contract was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering the following evaluation criteria: Area 1: Technical/Management Item 1: Technical/Management a. Understanding of Requirements b. Contract Management Item 2: Quality Control Item 3: Training Plan Area 2: Past Performance Item 1: Relevant Department of Defense (DOD) Past Performance Item 2: Relevant Other Federal, State and Local Government, or Commercial Past Performance Area 3: Cost /1/ The technical/management items were equally-weighted and, together, were significantly more important than past performance. The first item in the past performance area was significantly more important than the second item. RFP Sec. M.4.a. When combined, the non-price evaluation factors and subfactors were significantly more important than price. RFP Sec. L.4.b. The NGB planned to assign adjectival ratings to the technical/management area items and factors, and to assign past performance risk ratings equivalent to the degree of risk evaluated in each proposal. RFP Sec. M.6. Price was not to be rated, but was to be evaluated as to completeness, reasonableness, and realism. RFP Sec. M.5.b. The agency received five proposals in response to the solicitation. Based on the results of the source selection committee's initial evaluation, the contracting officer established a competitive range of three, including the proposals of Midwest and Maytag, the incumbent contractor at five of the seven locations. Discussions were conducted and revised proposals were submitted and evaluated, with the following final results: . Technical/Management Past Price Performance Firm A Highly Acceptable Low Risk $[DELETED] Midwest Fully Acceptable Low Risk $7,882,850 Maytag Fully Acceptable Moderate Risk $[DELETED] Maytag's technical/management proposal received only one rating that was not fully acceptable. Under the technical/management item, the firm's proposal was rated marginal under the contract management factor because the NGB found that it failed to adequately cover the hiring of personnel at one location. The NGB concluded that there was no indication the firm would have a qualified supervisor onboard as required; the resume for the person proposed did not meet the minimum experience requirement set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). Despite this marginal rating for one factor under the technical/management item, the item itself was rated fully acceptable overall, as was the technical/management proposal. Maytag's proposal was rated marginal/moderate risk /2/ under the past performance area because the agency believed Maytag's past performance at [DELETED] locations indicated a [DELETED] concern regarding the firm's ability to recruit and retain highly qualified personnel. The agency considered Firm A's proposal to be technically superior to both other proposals, but acknowledged that it was also the most costly proposal. The NGB believed that Midwest was the next most highly qualified offeror based on the evaluation results, at the lowest price, and did not believe it could justify award to Firm A over Midwest. Award was made to Midwest on March 30, and this protest followed.