DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc., B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3, December 12, 2001

DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc., B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3, December 12, 2001 TITLE: DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc., B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3, December 12, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3 DATE: December 12, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: DeLeon Technical Services, Inc.; TekStar, Inc. File: B-288811; B-288811.2; B-288811.3 Date: December 12, 2001 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, for DeLeon Technical Services, Inc., and Robert S. Gardner, Esq., for TekStar, Inc., the protesters. Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Kara L. Daniels, Esq.., Holland & Knight, for Phoenix Management, Inc., an intervenor. Warren D. Leishman, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, 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. Protests relating to the propriety of an agency's evaluation of proposals are denied where record shows that agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme outlined in the solicitation; protesters' disagreement with agency's evaluation conclusions is inadequate to show evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Protest that agency failed to engage in adequate discussions is denied where record shows that offerors were led into areas of their proposals requiring amplification or correction; agencies are not required to "spoon feed" offerors with respect to each and every element of their proposals found deficient. DECISION DeLeon Technical Services, Inc. and TekStar, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Phoenix Management, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05603-00-R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for logistics support services at several Air Force installations. Both protesters maintain that the agency misevaluated proposals in several respects and failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract to perform consolidated logistics support services at four Air Force installations: Peterson Air Force Base (AFB), F.E. Warren AFB, Malmstrom AFB, and Vandenberg AFB. Performance is for a basic contract period of 1 year, with 5 option years, and is to commence initially only at Peterson AFB, with the other installations being phased in gradually over a period of approximately 4 years (as preexisting contracts at the other installations expire). Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the government considering price and non-price factors. RFP sect. M-1. There were three non-price evaluation factors: past performance/confidence, proposal risk, and mission capability. Past performance/confidence and proposal risk were equal in importance, and both were more important than mission capability; each of the three factors was more important than price, and the three combined were significantly more important than price. RFP sect. M-3. The Air Force received numerous proposals and, after an initial evaluation, established a competitive range comprised of DeLeon, TekStar and Phoenix. After engaging in discussions and obtaining final proposal revisions, the agency rated the proposals as follows: Phoenix DeLeon TekStar Past Performance/ Exceptional/High Very Good/ Satisfactory/ Confidence Confidence Significant Confidence Confidence Proposal Risk Low Moderate Low Mission Green/Acceptable Green/Acceptable Green/Acceptable Capability Price $64,504,485 $57,517,350 $61,363,066 On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency concluded that Phoenix's technically superior proposal offered the best overall value to the government notwithstanding its higher cost, and therefore made award to that firm. TEKSTAR'S PROTEST Mission Capability Evaluation The RFP required the successful contractor to establish a consolidated/integrated supply "back shop," where common supply functions for all four installations would be performed, thereby eliminating duplicative logistics and supply operations at the various locations. The mission capability criterion included a subfactor under which offerors' approaches to centralization and management of the supply back shops would be assessed. RFP sect.sect. M-5.B, M-5.B.2. TekStar contends that the agency improperly applied an unstated evaluation consideration in distinguishing between its and the awardee's proposals under the mission capability factor. Specifically, TekStar claims the agency improperly highlighted the point in time when each firm proposed to establish the consolidated supply back shop.