NCLN20, Inc., B-287692, July 25, 2001

B-287692 Jul 25, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the technical proposals and determined that NCLN20's proposal was only marginally acceptable. Concludes that it improperly was eliminated from the competitive range. We will not reevaluate proposals. We will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Were reasonable. UNSTATED EVALUATION FACTORS NCLN20 asserts that organizational structure and transition/start-up plan were not stated elements of the evaluation. It should have specified them in the RFP. This argument is without merit. While procuring agencies are required to identify the significant evaluation factors and subfactors in a solicitation. View Decision NCLN20, Inc., B-287692, July 25, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NCLN20, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-03P-01-CDC-0051, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for central alarm monitoring and radio dispatching services at the GSA MegaCenter in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation based on four technical factors -- key personnel, staffing plan, corporate experience and employee incentive plan -- and price, with the technical factors considered more important than price. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the technical proposals and determined that NCLN20's proposal was only marginally acceptable, and should be excluded from the competitive range. NCLN20 challenges several aspects of the evaluation of its proposal, and concludes that it improperly was eliminated from the competitive range. The competitive range generally consists of the most highly rated proposals, based on evaluation of the information submitted in each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria. United Housing Servs., Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 80 at 3. In reviewing protests of competitive range determinations, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 59 at 4. The evaluation here, and the agency's decision to exclude NCLN20's proposal from the competitive range, were reasonable. UNSTATED EVALUATION FACTORS NCLN20 asserts that organizational structure and transition/start-up plan were not stated elements of the evaluation, and that the agency therefore improperly downgraded its proposal under the staffing plan factor based on the firm's failure to address these items. The protester maintains that, if GSA wanted offerors to specifically address these items, it should have specified them in the RFP. This argument is without merit. While procuring agencies are required to identify the significant evaluation factors and subfactors in a solicitation, they are not required to identify the various aspects of each factor which might be taken into account, provided that such aspects are reasonably related to or encompassed by the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. Farnham Security, Inc., B-280959.5, Feb. 9, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 100 at 3. GSA asserts that organizational structure and transition/start-up plan are logically related to the staffing plan factor, and therefore were properly considered under that factor. Agency Report (AR) at 4. Specifically, GSA explains, an offeror's organizational structure relates to staffing because it demonstrates the levels of control and the role of the project manager; the transition/start-up plan is related because it demonstrates how the offeror will ensure adequate staffing immediately following contract award. Id. NCLN20 does not dispute that these items are logically related to the staffing plan factor, and we think the agency reasonably could expect offerors to recognize the need to address these areas, even without an express RFP requirement for the information. We therefore find no basis for questioning the agency's position. /1/ NCLN20 maintains that the agency also improperly downgraded its proposal under the employee incentive plan factor based on its failure to discuss premium pay, since the RFP did not require offerors to address this area and, in any case, described premium pay as a program administered by GSA that is separate from the employee incentive program. GSA maintains that premium pay was logically related to the employee incentive plan factor. We agree with GSA. The solicitation required offerors to propose an employee incentive program, RFP Sec. M.4; amend.